HISTORY  OF  INTERPRETATION. 


«s 


F3 


HISTORY  OF  INTERPRETATION 


EIGHT  LECTURES 

PREACHED  BEFORE  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OXFORD  IN 

THE  YEAR  MDCCCLXXXV. 


ON  THE  FOUNDATION  OF 

THE  LATE  REV.  JOHN  BAMPTON 


BY 

FREDERIC  W.  FARRAR,  D.D.,  F.R.S., 


Late  Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge  ;  Archdeacon  and  Canon  of  Westminster ; 

Chaplain  in  Ordinary  to  the  Queen. 


Publishers  and  Importers,  31,  West  Twenty-Third  Street. 

1886. 


The  Bight  of  Translation  and  Reproduction  is  Reserved. 


Richard  Clay  &  Sons, 

BREAD  STREET  HILL,  LONDON, 
Bungay ,  Suffolk. 


TO 


THE  REV.  BENJAMIN  JOWETT,  M.A., 

MASTER  OF  BALLIOL  COLLEGE, 

AND 

VICE-CHANCELLOR  OF  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OXFORD, 

|  gfbinitc  iljest  Vedurts, 

WITH  SINCERE  RESPECT  FOR  THE  SERVICES  WHICH  HE 
HAS  RENDERED  TO  THE  CAUSE  OF  EDUCATION, 
THEOLOGY,  AND  LITERATURE, 

AND  IN  GRATEFUL  ACKNOWLEDGMENT 


OF 


MANY 


YEARS  OF  PERSONAL  KINDNESS. 


PKEFACE. 

i 

In  publishing  these  Lectures  there  are  two  remarks  whicli 
I  ought  at  once  to  make,  because  they  may  serve  to  obviate 
much  criticism  which  will  have  no  relation  to  the  objects 
which  I  have  had  in  view. 

1.  By  Exegesis  I  always  mean  the  explanation  of  the 
immediate  and  primary  sense  of  the  sacred  writings. 
If  I  were  treating  the  subject  from  an  entirely  different 
point  of  view  it  would  be  easy  to  show  that  much 
of  the  material  which  has  furnished  forth  many  hundreds 
of  commentaries  remains  practically  unchanged  from  early 
days.  But  this  material  is  mainly  homiletic.  It  aims 
almost  exclusively  at  moral  and  spiritual  edification.  In 
such  practical  instruction  the  writings  of  the  Fathers  and 
the  Schoolmen  abound,  and  it  is  often  of  the  highest 
intrinsic  value  even  when  it  has  but  a  slender  connexion 
with  the  text  on  which  it  is  founded.  When  I  speak  of 
Scriptural  interpretation  I  am  using  the  phrase  in  its 
narrower  and  more  limited  meaning. 

2.  It  is  obvious  that  within  the  compass  of  Eight  Lectures 
an  exhaustive  treatment  of  so  wide  a  subject  would  be 
impossible.  To  write  a  full  history  of  Exegesis  would 
require  a  space  of  many  volumes.  I  here  only  profess  to  deal 


vm  Preface. 

with  the  chief  epochs  in  the  progress  of  Biblical  science,  and 
my  endeavour  has  been  to  give  some  account,  however  brief, 
of  those  who  caused  the  chief  moments  of  fresh  impulse  to 
the  methods  of  interpretation.  Hence,  there  have  been 
many  eminent  commentators  whose  names  do  not  occur  in 
the  following  pages  because  their  writings  produced  no 
change  in  the  dominant  conceptions.  The  remark  applies 
especially  to  the  great  Bomanist  commentators  since  the 
Reformation,  such  as  Vatablus  ('t  1547),  Maldonatus  (f*  1583), 
Estius  (f  1613),  Cornelius  a  Lapide  (f  1657),  Martianay 
(f  1717),  Calmet  (f  1757),  and  others.  I  should  be  the 
last  person  to  depreciate  their  conspicuous  merits.1  In  any 
complete  History  of  Exegesis  the  names  of  these  great  and 
learned  writers  would  of  course  find  an  honoured  place.  I 
have  not  been  able  to  touch  upon  their  labours  partly  from 
want  of  space,  but  chiefly  because  I  only  profess  to  furnish 
some  outline  of  the  epoch-making  events  of  Scriptural  study. 

There  does  not  exist  in  any  language  a  complete  History 
of  Exegesis.  Large  materials  for  such  a  task  are  collected 
m  such  works  as  the  Isagoge  of  Buddeus  (1730),  Schrock’s 
Kirchengeschichte  (1768—1812),  Rosenmiiller’s  Eistoria  In¬ 
ter  pretationis  (1795 — 1814),  Meyer’s  G-eschichte  der  Schrifter- 
klarung  (1803),  Klausen’s  Eermeneutih  des  Neuen  Testaments 
(translated  from  the  Danish  1841),  Diestel’s  Geschichte  des 
Alten  Testamentes  (1869),  Reuss’  Die  Geschichte  der  Eeiligen 
Schriften  (1874),  Merx’s  Die  Prophetie  des  Joel  und  ihre 
Ausleger  (1879), 2  and  others  which  will  be  found  mentioned 
m  the  appended  Bibliography.  Much  information  on  parts 
of  the  subject  may  also  be  derived  from  the  various  Histories 

1  For  some  account  of  these  Commentators,  see  Klausen,  Eermeneutih 
(Germ.  Tr.  1841),  pp.  249-252.  Werner,  Gesch.  d.  Kath.  Theol.  1866. 

2  I  give  the  dates  of  the  editions  which  I  have  myself  used. 


Preface.  ix 

of  Gratz,  Jost,  Neander,  Gieseler,  Bohringer,  Horner,  Milman, 
and  others.  But  the  entire  history  has  never  been  com¬ 
pletely  and  satisfactorily  written,  and  it  would  furnish 
worthy  occupation  for  a  lifetime  of  study.  If  I  have  some¬ 
times  wearied  the  reader  with  too  many  references  I  have 
done  so  in  the  hope  that  they  might  prove  useful  to  some 
student  who  may  hereafter  undertake  a  task  so  interesting 
and  so  instructive. 

In  writing  these  sketches  of  the  History  of  Biblical  Inter¬ 
pretation  I  have  never  forgotten  that  the  Bampton  Lectures 
are  meant  to  be  apologetic.  My  sole  desire  has  been  to 
defend  the  cause  of  Christianity  by  furthering  the  interests 
of  truth.  So  far  as  former  methods  of  exegesis  have  been 
mistaken  they  have  been  also  perilous.  A  recognition  of 
past  errors  can  hardly  fail  to  help  us  in  disencumbering  from 
fatal  impediments  the  religious  progress  of  the  future. 

I  have  desired  to  carry  out  the  purposes  of  the  Founder  in 
three  ways. 

First,  by  drawing  attention  to'  the  inevitable  change  in  the 
conditions  of  criticism  which  has  been  necessitated  alike  by 
the  experience  of  the  Christian  Church  and  by  that  advance 
in  knowledge  which  is  nothing  less  than  a  new  revelation  of 
the  ways  and  works  of  God. 

Secondly,  by  showing  that  there  is  in  the  final  and  eternal 
teachings  of  Scripture  a  grandeur,  which,  in  al]  ages,  how¬ 
ever  learned  or  however  ignorant,  has  secured  for  them  a 
transcendent  authority.  A  Book  less  sacred  would  have 
been  discredited  by  the  dangerous  uses  to  which  it  has 
often  been  perverted ;  but  no  aberrations  of  interpreters 
have  been  suffered  to  weaken,  much  less  to  abrogate,  the 
essential  revelation  which  has  exercised  from  the  first,  and 
will  “  to  the  last  syllable  of  recorded  time  ”  continue  to 


x  Preface. 

exercise  a  unique  power  over  the  hearts  and  consciences 
of  men. 

Thirdly,  by  robbing  of  all  their  force  the  objections  of 
infidels  and  freethinkers  to  the  historic  details  or  moral 
imperfections  of  particular  narratives  of  the  Old  Testament. 
This  endeavour  has  an  importance  that  those  only  will 
appreciate  who  have  tried  to  understand  the  thoughts  of 
many  hearts.  “  There  are  things  in  the  Old  Testament,” 
says  Professor  Drummond,  “  cast  in  the  teeth  of  the 
apologist  by  sceptics,  to  which  he  has  simply  no  answer. 
These  are  the  things,  the  miserable  things,  the  masses  have 
laid  hold  of.  They  are  the  stock-in-trade  of  the  freethought 
platform  and  the  secularist  pamphleteer.  A  new  exegesis,  a 
reconsideration  of  the  historic  setting,  and  a  clearer  view  of 
the  moral  purposes  of  God,  would  change  them  from  barriers 
into  bulwarks  of  the  faith.” 1  But  we  cannot  meet  these 
objections  by  treating  the  Bible  as  a  mere  word-book,  as  a 
compendium  of  homogeneous  doctrines,  as  “  an  even  plane  of 
proof  texts  without  proportion,  or  emphasis,  or  light,  or 
shade.”  The  existence  of  moral  and  other  difficulties  in 
the  Bible  has  been  frankly  recognised  in  all  ages,  and  it  is 
certain  that  they  can  no  longer  be  met  by  such  methods  as 
were  devised  by  Philo,  or  Origen,  or  Aquinas,  or  Calovius. 
But  they  vanish  before  the  radical  change  of  attitude  which 
has  taught  us  to  regard  the  Bible  as  the  record  of  a  pro¬ 
gressive  revelation  divinely  adapted  to  the  hard  heart,  the 
dull  understanding,  and  the  slow  development  of  mankind. 
They  are  fatal  to  untenable  theories  of  inspiration  whether 
Babbinic  or  Scholastic,  but  they  are  powerless  against  the 
clearer  conceptions  which  we  have  neither  invented  nor 
discovered,  but  which  have  been  opened  to  us  by  the  teach- 

1  Contributions  of  Science  to  Christianity .  Expositor,  Feb.  1885. 


Preface.  xi 

ing  of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  the  domains  of  History  and  of 
Science.  It  may  be  said  that  the  Bible  is  the  same  to-day 
as  it  was  a  thousand  years  ago.  Yes,  and  Nature  too  is  the 
same  now  as  she  was  in  the  days  of  Pythagoras ;  but  it  is  as 
impossible  to  interpret  the  Bible  now  by  the  methods  of 
Aqiba  or  Hilary  as  it  is  to  interpret  Nature  by  the  methods 
of  Pythagoras.  The  History  of  Exegesis  leads  us  to  the  com¬ 
plete  transformation  of  a  method,  and  leaves  us  with  a  Bible 
more  precious  than  of  old,  because  more  comprehensible, 
while  it  is  at  the  same  time  impregnable  in  every  essential 
particular  against  any  existing  form  of  assault. 

But  instead  of  dogmatically  propounding  a  scheme  of 
interpretation,  I  have  allowed  the  History  of  Interpretation 
to  suggest  to  us  its  own  scheme,  and  to  deliver  for  our 
guidance  its  own  lessons.  We  shall  see  system  after  system — 
the  Halakhic,  the  Kabbalistic,  the  Traditional,  the  Hierarchic, 
the  Inferential,  the  Allegorical,  the  Dogmatic,  the  Natural¬ 
istic  condemned  and  rejected,  each  in  turn,  by  the  experience 
and  widening  knowledge  of  mankind.  These  erroneous 
systems  arose  from  many  causes.  The  original  Hebrew 
of  the  Old  Testament  was  for  many  ages  unknown  to  the 
Christian  Church,  and  when  Greek  also  became  an  unknown 
language  to  all  except  a  few,  the  caprice  of  interpreters  was 
freed  from  important  checks.  Religious  controversy  went  to 
Scripture  not  to  seek  for  dogmas  but  to  find  them.  Mysticism 
interpreted  it  according  to  the  mood  of  the  moment  and 
placed  the  interpreter  above  the  text.  A  spurious  and 
unenlightened  idolatry  for  the  letter  of  Scripture  ignored  its 
simplicity  and  universality,  and  sought  for  enigmas  and 
mysteries  in  the  plainest  passages.  A  scholastic  orthodoxy 
developed  elaborate  systems  ot  theology  out  of  imaginary 
emphases,  and  by  the  aid  of  exorbitant  principles  of 


xii  Preface. 

inference.  Some  of  these  causes  of  error  are  removed,  hut 
we  still  meet  the  pale  and  feeble  shadows  of  the  old  systems 
wandering  here  and  there,  unexorcised,  in  modern  commen¬ 
taries.  They  can,  however,  only  be  regarded  with  curiosity 
as  anachronisms  and  survivals.  It  is  perhaps  inevitable  that 
as  each  individual  has  his  idols  of  the  cavern,  so  each  age 
should  have  its  idols  of  the  forum  or  the  theatre,  to  which  it 
offers  a  passionate  yet  half-unacknowledged  worship.  But 
the  last  word  of  the  sacred  Book  was  a  word  of  infinite 
significance.  It  was,  “  Little  children,  keep  yourselves  from 
idols.”  Idols  are  always  a  fatal  hindrance  to  the  attainment 
of  the  truth.  Sooner  or  later  they  that  make  them  become 
like  unto  them,  and  so  do  all  who  put  their  trust  in  them. 
Such  el'ScoXa — “  ignorant  well-meanings,  credulous  suspicions, 
and  fond  conceits  ” — these  fleeting  images  born  of  confusions 
of  language,  false  theories,  and  perverse  demonstrations,1 — 
only  vanish  when  the  light  of  God  penetrates  into  the  deep 
recesses  of  the  shrine.  History  is  a  ray  of  that  light  of 
God.  A  great  part  of  the  Bible  is  History,  and  all  History, 
rightly  understood,  is  also  a  Bible.  Its  lessons  are  God’s 
divine  method  of  slowly  exposing  error  and  of  guiding  into 
truth.  “  Facts  are  God’s  words,  and  to  be  disloyal  to  God’s 
facts  is  to  dethrone  Him  from  the  world.”  Orosius  began 
his  summary  of  the  Dc  Civitate  Dei  with  the  memorable 
words,  Divind  Providentid  agitur  mundus  et  homo.  It  was 
from  the  same  point  of  view  that  Bossuet  composed  his 
History.  “  History,”  said  Yico3  “  is  a  Civil  theology  of 
the  Divine  Providence.”  “The  History  of  the  World,” 
said  Wilhelm  von  Humboldt,  “  is  not  intelligible  apart  from  a 

1  “  Idola  fori  omnium  molestissima  sunt  ;  quae  ex  foedere  verborum  et 
nominum  se  insinuarunt  in  intellectum.”  “ Idola  theatri  innata  non  sunt 
.  .  .  sed  ex  fabulis  theoriarum  et  perversis  legibus  demonstrationum  plane 
indita  et  recepta.” — Bacon,  Nov.  Organum.  lib.  i.  lix.  lx. 


Preface.  xiii 

Government  of  the  world.”  “Every  step  in  advance  in 
History,”  said  Fichte,  “every  mental  act  which  introduces 
into  its  chain  of  occurrences  something  absolutely  new,  is  an 
inflowing  of  God.  God  alone  makes  History,  but  He  does 
this  by  the  agency  of  man.” 1  “  Great  men,”  says  Carlyle, 

“  are  the  inspired  texts  of  that  divine  book  of  Revelations 
whereof  a  chapter  is  completed  from  epoch  to  epoch,  and  by 
some  named  History.  2  And  if  we  look  for  higher  sanctions 
than  those  of  Yico,  or  Humboldt,  or  Fichte,  or  Carlyle — higher 
too  than  those  of  Orosius,  or  Augustine,  or  Bossuet — we  find 
them  in  St.  Paul  s  Philosophy  of  History  in  his  speech  at 
Athens,  that  “  God  made  of  one  every  nation  of  men 
having  determined  their  appointed  seasons,  that  they  should 
seek  God  if  haply  they  might  feel  after  Him  and  find 
Him;  3  or  in  the  yet  briefer  testimony  of  St.  John,  that 
there  is  a  true  light,  a  constant,  continuous  revelation  of 
the  Word  which  lighteth  every  man,  and  is  ever  coming 
into  the  World ; 4- — or  once  again  in  two  pregnant  passages 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  “  God  who  fragmentarily 
and  multifariously  spake  unto  the  Fathers  in  the  Prophets, 
hath  in  these  last  days  spoken  unto  us  in  His  Son ;  ” 5  and 
But  now  hath  He  promised,  saying,  £  Yet  once  more  will  I 
make  to  tremble  not  the  earth  only  but  also  the  heaven.’ 
And  this  word  £  Yet  once  more  ’  signifieth  the  removing  of 
chose  things  that  are  shaken  ....  that  those  things  which 
are  not  shaken  may  remain.”  6 

But  it  may  perhaps  be  asked,  “  How  can  the  Bible  have 
been  liable  to  agelong  misapprehensions  if  it  be  a  Divine 
Revelation  ?  ” 


1  Fichte,  Spec.  Theology ,  p.  651. 
3  Acts  xvii.  26-30. 


2  Sartor  Resartus,  p.  108. 
4  John  i.  9. 


XIV 


Preface. 


i.  The  answer  is  very  simple :  the  Bible  is  not  so 
much  a  revelation  as  the  record  of  a  revelation,  and  the 
inmost  and  most  essential  truths  which  it  contains  have 
happily  been  placed  above  the  reach  of  Exegesis  to  injure, 
being  written  also  in  the  Books  of  Nature  and  Experience, 
and  on  the  tables,  which  cannot  be  broken,  of  the  heart  of 
Man.  “  Where  the  doctrine  is  necessary  and  important,” 
there,  says  Whichcote,  “  the  Scripture  is  clear  and  full.” 

ii.  But,  secondly,  I  borrow  the  method  of  Bishop  Butler, 
and  say  that  the  agelong  misinterpretations  of  the  Bible  are 
no  more  a  disproof  of  its  divine  authority,  than  are  the  age¬ 
long  misinterpretations  of  Nature  any  disproof  of  its  Divine 
Creation.  If  the  History  of  Exegesis  involve  a  history  of 
false  suppositions  slowly  and  progressively  corrected,  so,  too, 
does  the  History  of  Science.  Kepler  was  contented  to  wait  a 
century  for  a  reader,  where  God  had  waited  six  thousand 
years  for  an  observer.  God  is  patient  because  Eternal,  and 
man  Avho  is  slow  to  learn  spiritual  truths,  is  still  slower  to 
unlearn  familiar  errors.  Being  men  and  not  angels,  it  is  by 
a  ladder  that  we  must  mount  step  by  step  towards  that 
heaven  which  the  mind  of  man  can  never  reach  by  wings. 

iii.  And,  thirdly,  explain  or  illustrate  the  fact  as  we  may, 
a  fact  it  is.  “Twenty  doctors,”  said  Tyndale,  “expound  one 
text  twenty  ways,  and  with  an  antitheme  of  half  an  inch 
some  of  them  draw  a  thread  of  nine  days  long.”  1  The  last 
Revision  of  the  Bible  has  once  more  reminded  us  that  many 
passages  and  hundreds  of  expressions  which  have  been 
implicitly  accepted  by  generations,  and  quoted  as  the  very 
word  of  God,  were  in  fact  the  erroneous  translations  of  im¬ 
perfect  readings.  If  the  vast  majority  of  Christians  have 
always  had  to  be  content  with  a  Bible  which  is  in  so  many 

1  Obedience  of  a  Christian  Man. 


Preface.  xv 

instances  inaccurately  copied  or  wrongly  translated,  it  is  not 
astonishing  that  they  should  also  have  had  to  put  up  with 
a  Bible  which  in  many  instances  has  been  wrongly  ex¬ 
plained.  Now  if  indeed  every  word  of  Scripture  had 
been  written  “  by  the  pen  of  the  Triune  God/’  we  might 
have  thought  that  these  errors  involved  an  irreparable  loss. 
But  the  loss  is  in  no  sense  irreparable.  It  affects  no 
single  essential  truth.  If  after  using  diligence  to  find  truth 
we  fall  into  error  where  the  Scriptures  are  not  plain,  there 
is  no  danger  in  it.  They  that  err,  and  they  that  do  not  err, 
shall  both  be  saved/’1 

But  it  must  not  be  supposed  that  the  lessons  which  we 
may  learn  from  the  History  of  Exegesis  are  merely  negative. 
It  has  positive  truths  to  teach  as  well  as  errors  to  dispel.  It 
may  show  us  the  stagnation  which  poisons  the  atmosphere 
of  Theology  when  Progress  is  violently  arrested,  and  Freedom 
authoritatively  suppressed.  It  may  show  us  the  duty  and  the 
necessity  of  that  tolerance  against  which,  from  the  first 
century  down  to  the  present  day,  Churches  and  theologians 
have  so  deeply  and  so  continuously  sinned.  It  may  show  us 
above  all  that  the  strength  of  the  Church  is  not  to  be  iden¬ 
tified  with  the  continuance  of  methods  which  have  been  tried 
and  found  wanting,  or  with  the  preservation  of  systems  which 
have  been  condemned  by  the  long  results  of  time.  Truth 
rests  on  something  far  different.  It  depends  upon  faithful¬ 
ness  to  the  immediate  teaching  of  Christ,  and  on  obedience 
to  the  continual  guidance  of  His  ever-present  Spirit.  The 
authority  of  the  Scripture  can  only  be  vindicated  by  the 
appiehension  of  its  divmest  elements.  We  cannot  under¬ 
stand  its  final  teaching  except  by  recognising  the  co-ordinate 
authority  of  Faith,  and  by  believing  that  to  us,  as  to  the  holy 

1  Chillingworth,  Religion  of  Protestants. 


XVI 


Preface. 


men  of  old,  the  Spirit  still  utters  the  living  oracles  of  God. 
Many  lessons  have  been  derived  from  Scripture  which  are 
alien  from  the  final  teaching  of  the  New  Dispensation,  but 

“  One  accent  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
The  heedless  world  has  never  lost.” 

And  is  it  a  small  lesson  if  we  thus  learn  that  we  are 
not  bound  passively  to  abandon  to  others  the  exercise  of  our 
noblest  faculties,  nor  to  shut  our  eyes  to  the  teachings  of  ex¬ 
perience  ;  but  that  it  is  our  duty  with  fearless  freedom,  though 
in  deep  humility  and  the  sincerity  of  pure  hearts,  to  follow 
in  all  things  the  guidance  of  Reason  and  of  Conscience  ? 

“  A  man  may  be  an  heretic  in  the  truth,  and  if  he  believe 
things  only  because  his  pastor  says  so,  or  the  assembly  so 
determines,  without  knowing  other  reason,  though  his  belief 
be  true,  yet  the  very  truth  he  holds  becomes  his  heresy/’ 
So  spake  the  lofty  soul  of  John  Milton. 

“  He  who  makes  use  of  the  light  and  faculties  which  God 
hath  given  him,  and  seeks  sincerely  to  discover  truth  by 
those  helps  and  abilities  ....  will  not  miss  the  reward  of 
truth.  He  that  doeth  otherwise  transgresses  against  his  own 
light/’  So  spake  the^  serene  wisdom  of  John  Locke. 

Could  we  listen  to  manlier  voices  ?  But  if  we  look  rather 
for  theological,  for  orthodox,  for  episcopal  authority  its  best 
teaching  will  be  of  the  same  tenor.  “For  men  to  be 
tied  and  led  by  authority,  as  it  were  with  a  kind  of 
captivity  of  judgment,  and  though  there  be  reason  to 
the  contrary  not  to  listen  to  it,  but  to  follow  like  beasts 
the  first  in  the  herd,  this  were  brutish.”  So  spake  one 
whom  the  Church  of  England  once  revered — Richard 
Hooker.1 

“  Reason,”  says  Culverwell,  “  is  the  daughter  of  Eternity, 


1  Ecd.  Pol.  ii.  7,  §  6. 


Preface.  Xvii 

and  before  Antiquity,  which  is  the  daughter  of  Time.”1 

Reason  can,  and  it  ought  to  judge,  not  only  of  the  mean- 
ing,  but  also  of  the  morality  and  evidence  of  revelation.” 

So  spake  one  whom  we  still  profess  to  revere— Bishop 
Butler.2 

“  No  aPol°gy  can  be  required  for  applying  to  the  Bible 
the  principles  of  reason  and  learning ;  for  if  the  Bible  could 
not  stand  the  test  of  reason  and  learning  it  could  not  be 
what  it  is— a  work  of  divine  wisdom.  The  Bible  therefore 
must  be  examined  by  the  same  laws  of  criticism  which  are 
applied  to  other  writings  of  antiquity.”  So  wrote  Bishop 
Herbert  Marsh. 

Do  we  need  yet  higher  authority  to  show  us  that  we  are 
m  the  light  when  we  scorn  to  register  the  decrees  of  human 
fallibility,  or  to  float  down  the  smooth  current  of  religious 
opinions  ?  If  so  we  may  find  it  abundantly  in  Scripture. 
“  Tlle  sPirit  °f  man,”  says  Solomon,  “  is  the  candle  of  the 
Lord.  3  “  Brethren,  believe  not  every  spirit,  but  try  the 

spirits  whether  they  are  of  God.”  4  So  said  St.  John  the 
Divine.  “  Prove  all  things ;  hold  fast  that  which  is  good.” 
So  wrote  St.  Paul.5 

Do  we  seek  yet  higher  authority  for  this  indefeasible 
right  of  private  judgment?  We  have  the  authority  of 
Christ  Himself.  “  Why  even  of  yourselves,  judge  ye  not 
what  is  right  ?  ”  So  spake  the  Lord  of  Glory.6 

But  further,  this  history  has  taught  us  that  with  Freedom, 
and  the  fearless  appeal  to  the  reason  and  the  conscience  in 
judging  the  separate  utterances  of  Scripture,  so  too  there 
must  be  Progress.  “  Truth,”  says  Milton,  “  is  compared  in 

1  Ductor  Dubitantium,  I.  ii.  §  64.  2  Ligllt  0j-  Mature,  p.  136. 

3  Prov.  xx.  27.  4  1  John  iv.  1. 

0  1  Thess.  v.  21.  6  Lllke  xii> 


b 


xviii  Preface. 

Scripture  to  a  streaming  fountain ;  if  tier  waters  flow  not  in 
a  perpetual  progression  they  sicken  into  a  muddy  pool  of  con¬ 
formity  and  tradition.”  A  timid  attitude,  a  passive  attitude, 
a  servile  attitude  belongs  to  the  spirit  of  fear,  not  to  that  of  a 
sound  mind.  It  is  nothing  short  of  a  sin  against  light  and 
knowledge — yes,  I  will  say  it  boldly,  it  is  nothing  short  of  a 
sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost — to  stereotype,  out  of  the  pretence 
of  reverence,  the  errors  of  men  who  were  not  more  illuminated 
by  God’s  Spirit  than  we  may  be,  and  who  in  knowledge 
were  hundreds  of  years  behind  ourselves.  Lactantius,  on 
the  authority  of  Scripture,  denied  that  the  earth  was 
round ;  and  Augustine  that  there  could  be  men  at  the 
antipodes  ;  and  the  Spanish  theologians  that  there  could 
be  a  western  hemisphere.  “  Who,”  asks  Calvin,  “  will  ven¬ 
ture  to  place  the  authority  of  Copernicus  above  that  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  ?  ”  “  Newton’s  discoveries,”  said  the  Puritan 

John  Owen,  “  are  against  evident  testimonies  of  Scripture. 
With  what  outbursts  of  denunciation  has  almost  every  new 
science  been  received  by  narrow  literalists  !  Surely  such 
ignorant  condemnations  show  us  that  the  revision  of  the 
principles  and  methods  of  exegesis  is  rendered  absolutely 
necessary  by  the  ever-widening  knowledge  of  modern  days. 
Theology  must  reckon  with  this  infinite  desire  of  knowledge 
which  has  broken  out  all  over  the  world,  with  this  rapid  and 
ever-rising  tide  of  truth  which  she  is  impotent  to  stay.  We 
may  store  the  truth  in  our  earthen  vessels,  but,  as  has  been 
truly  said,  they  must  lie  unstopped  in  the  ocean,  for  if  we 
take  them  out  of  it  we  shall  only  have  “  stagnant  doctrines 
rotting  in  a  dead  theology.” 

I  have,  therefore,  endeavoured  as  regards  each  of  the  seven 
epochs  of  exegesis  to  point  out  the  causes  and  the  origin  of 
its  special  conceptions;  to  set  the  series  of  writers,  and 


Preface. 


xix 


movements,  and  views  in  their  true  historic  horizon  ;  to  see 
the  manifold  influences  which  affected  the  schools  of  exe- 
getes  and  were  modified  by  them ;  and  to  show  how  many 
of  these  conceptions  have  been  proved  by  the  course  of  time 
to  he  more  or  less  untenable.  We  shall  see  exegesis  fettered 
under  the  sway  of  legalism;  of  Greek  philosophy  ;  of  allegory  ; 
of  tradition  ;  of  ecclesiastic  system  ;  of  Aristotelian  dialectics  ; 
of  elaborate  dogma.  We  shall  observe  the  revival  of  the 
methods  of  the  School  of  Antioch  in  the  emergence  of 
grammatical  and  literal  interpretations  at  the  Renaissance 
and  the  Reformation,  and  shall  see  reviving  energies  strangled 
for  a  time  by  the  theological  intolerance  of  a  Protestant 
scholasticism.  We  shall  survey  the  influence  upon  exegesis 
of  a  philosophic  scepticism,  and  shall  note  the  lines  and 
methods  by  which  the  attacks  of  that  scepticism  have  been  ”  / 
rendered  powerless.  But  in  judging  of  systems  there  is 
scarcely  an  instance  in  which  I  have  failed  to  do  justice  to 
the  greatness  and  sincerity  of  men.  Aqiba  and  Philo, 
Origen  and  Augustine,  Aquinas  and  De  Lyra,  Spener 
and  Calixt,  Schleiermacher  and  Baur  have  severally  received 
the  meed  of  acknowledgment  due  to  their  genius  and  their 
integrity.  We  may  say  of  them  all,  “  Habeantur  ....  pro  - 
luminibus,  sed  nobis  sit  unicum  numen.” 1  The  rejection 
of  their  methods  no  more  involves  injustice  to  them  than 
the  rejection  of  the  Ptolemaic  system  involves  any  contempt 
for  the  genius  of  Ptolemy. 

There  are  two  tasks  which  I  have  not  attempted  to 
perform : — 

i.  It  has  been  no  part  of  my  duty  to  lay  down  any  theory  of 
Inspiration.  It  has  indeed  been  impossible  to  avoid  frequent 
references  to  one  theory — that  of  verbal  dictation — because 

1  Rivetus,  Isagoge ,  cap.  18,  §11. 

b  2 


XX  Preface. 

from  it  (as  I  have  been  obliged  to  show)  every  mistaken 
method  of  interpretation,  and  many  false  views  of  morals  and 
sociology,  have  derived  their  disastrous  origin.  That  theory 
has  never  offered  any  valid  proof  for  the  immense  demand 
which  it  makes  upon  our  credulity.1  It  confessedly  traverses 
all  the  prima  facie  phenomena  of  Scripture,  and  yet  it  finds 
no  support  in  the  claims  of  Scripture  for  itself.  It  sprang 
from  heathenism,  and  it  leads  to  infidelity.  It  has  been 
decisively  rejected  by  many  of  the  greatest  Christian  theo¬ 
logians  and — as  I  have  had  occasion  to  prove  is  inconsistent 
with  the  repeated  expressions  of  many  by  whom  it  was 
nominally  accepted.2  But  while  we  shun  the  falsehood  of 

1  Tholuck,  in  his  admirable  paper  on  “The  Doctrine  of  Inspiration,” 
translated  in  the  Journal  of  Sacred  Literature,  vi.  331-369,  thinks  that  the 
view  of  inspiration  which  regarded  Holy  Scripture  as  the  infallible  production 
of  the  Divine  Spirit,  not  merely  in  its  religious,  but  in  its  entire,  contents, 
and  not  merely  in  its  contents,  but  in  its  very  form,  is  not  earlier,  strictly  speak¬ 
ing,  than  the  seventeenth  century.  He  refers  to  Quenstedt,  Theol.  Didact. 
Polem.  i.  55  ;  Heidegger,  Corp.  Theol.  ii.  34  ;  Calovins,  Systema,  i.  484,  &c,, 
&c.,  and  says  that  the  Lutheran  symbols  contain  no  express  definition  of  the 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures.  He  was  of  course  aware  of  the  loose, 
rhetorical,  popular  phrases  used  by  many  of  the  Fathers  and  Schoolmen,  but 
he  points  out  that  their  modes  of  pealing  with  Scripture  belie  their  verbal 
theories,  as  in  Papias,  ap.  Euseb.  H.  E.  iii.  39  ;  Orig.  in  Joann,  tome  i.  p.  4 
(ed.  1668)  ;  i.  p.  383  [id.)  ;  Aug.  Dc  Cons.  Evang.  i.  35,  ii.  12,  28  ;  Junilius, 
De  partibus  Div.  Leg.  i.  8,  and  to  many  passages  of  Jerome.  He  also 
quotes  Agobard,  adv.  Fredegis,  c.  12,  and  St.  Thomas  Aquinas,  Summa,  i. 
qu.  32,  art.  4 ;  Abelard,  Sic  et  Eon,  p.  11  (ed.  Cousin).  Many  Roman 
Catholic  theologians  admit  minor  errors,  discrepancies,  &c.,  in  the  Bible,  e.g. 
Bellarmine,  Bonfrere,  Cornelius  5,  Lapide,  R.  Simon,  Antonius  de  Dominis, 
Erasmus,  Maldonatus.  So  also  did  Luther,  Zwingli,  Colet,  Brenz,  Bullinger, 
Castellio,  Grotius,  Rivet,  Calixt,  Le  Clerc,  &c.  Such  views  are  inconsistent 
with  the  Verbal  Dictation  Dogma  of  Calovius,  Voetius,  and  the  Formula 
Consensus  Helve tici.  See  Tholuclc,  l.c. 

2  Among  theologians  who  have  indirectly  or  explicitly  rejected  the  theory 
of  verbal  dictation  and  infallibility  (though  some  of  them  at  times  used  loose 
popular  and  general  language  entirely  inconsistent  with  their  own  admissions) 
may  be  mentioned  among  English  writers  Hooker,  Hovre,  Chillingworth, 
Bishop  Williams,  Burnet,  Baxter,  Tillotson,  Horsley,  Doddridge,  Warburton, 
Paley,  Lowth,  Hey,  Watson,  Law,  Tomline,  Dr.  J.  Barrow,  Dean  Conybeare, 
Bishop  Hinds,  Bishop  Daniel  Wilson,  Bishops  Van  Mildert  and  Blomfield, 
Archbishop  Whately,  Bishops  Hampden,  Thirlwall,  and  Heber,  Dean  Alford, 


XXI 


Preface. 

this  extreme  we  equally  shun  the  opposite  falsehood  of  treat¬ 
ing  Scripture  as  though  it  did  not  contain  a  divine  revelation. 
If  we  accept  the  Inspiration  of  Scripture,  without  attempting 
to  define  it,  we  only  follow  the  example  of  the  Universal 
Church.  Neither  the  Catholic  creeds,  nor  the  Anglican 
articles,  nor  the  Lutheran  symbols,  nor  the  Tridentine  decrees 
define  it.  In  modern  times  especially,  bishops  and  theo¬ 
logians  of  every  school  have  been  singularly  unanimous  in 
repudiating  every  attempt  to  determine  exactly  what  In¬ 
spiration  means.1  “  It  seems  certain,”  said  Bishop  Thirlwall, 
“  that  there  is  no  visible  organ  of  our  Church  competent  to 
define  that  which  has  hitherto  been  left  undetermined  on 
this  point,”  namely,  what  is  the  line  to 'be  drawn  between 


Thomas  Scott,  Dr.  Pye  Smith,  and  very  many  living  or  recent  theologians. 
See  for  references  Dr.  A.  S.  Farrar,  Bampton  Lectures,  pp.  668-671  ;  Pusey, 
Historical  Enquiry,  ch.  v. 

1  “I  was  in  nowise  called  upon  to  attempt  any  definition  of  Inspiration,” 
says  Archbishop  Tait  in  his  Pastoral  Letter,  “seeing  that  the  Church  has  not 
thought  fit  to  prescribe  one.” 

“The  Church  has  laid  down,”  says  the  Archbishop  of  York  in  his  Pastoral 
Letter,  “  no  theory  of  Inspiration  ;  she  has  always  had  in  her  bosom  teachers 
of  at  least  two  different  theories.” 

“We  heartily  concur  with  the  majority  of  our  opponents,”  says  the  Bishop 
of  Gloucester  and  Bristol  in  Aids  to  Faith,  p.  404,  “in  rejecting  all  theories  of 
Inspiration.” 

“Let  us  beware,”  says  Dean  Burgon  (Pastoral  Office,  p.  58),  “how  we 
commit  ourselves  to  any  theories  of  Inspiration  whatever.” 

“Our  Church,”  says  Bishop  Thirlwall  ( Charge  for  1863),  “has  never 
attempted  to  determine  the  nature  of  the  Inspiration  of  Holy  Scripture” 
(p.  107  ;  see,  too,  Charges,  i.  p.  295). 

“If  you  ask  me,”  says  Dr.  Cotton,  Bishop  of  Calcutta,  “for  a  precise 
theory  of  Inspiration,  I  confess  that  I  can  only  urge  you  to  repudiate  all 
theories,  to  apply  to  theology  the  maxim  which  guided  Newton  in  philosophy, 
hypotheses  non  fingo,  and  to  rest  your  teaching  upon  the  facts  which  God  has 
made  known  to  us  ”  (Charge  of  1863,  p.  69). 

“  It  must  be  borne  in  mind,”  says  the  Quarterly  Review,  “that  the  Church 
Universal  has  never  given  any  definition  of  Inspiration”  (April,  1864, 
p.  560). 

“  It  seems  pretty  generally  agreed,”  says  the  Bishop  of  Winchester,  “  that 
definite  theories  of  Inspiration  are  doubtful  and  dangerous  ”  (Aids  to  Faith , 
p.  303). 


xxii  Preface . 

tlio  divine  and  the  human  elements  in  the  Bible.  Under 
such  circumstances  we  turn  to  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures, 
and  there  we  find  many  instances  to  prove  that  “  inspiration 
involves  neither  general  perfection  nor  infallibility,  nor  any 
perpetual  immunity  from  imitations  of  intellect  or  errors 
of  practice.1  If  we  endeavour  to  arrive  at  the  meaning  of 
the  word  from  its  usage  m  our  own  formularies  we  there  re¬ 
peatedly  find  that  the  term  “  inspiration  ”  is  given  to  processes 
of  grace  which  never  exclude  the  coexistence  of  ordinary 
human  imperfections.2  And  this  is  in  exact  accordance  with 
every  indication  which  we  derive  from  the  New  Testament,  for 
it  shows  us  that  inspired  men,  after  the  gift  of  Pentecost,  in 
nowise  regarded  themselves  as  being  exempt  from  human 
weaknesses,  and  indeed  differed  widely  from  each  other  in 
matters  of  minor  importance,  while  they  were  in  absolute 
agreement  about  essential  truths.  It  is  a  mere  a  priori 
theory  to  assume  that  in  their  written  words  their  per» 
sonality  was  obliterated  by  a  supernatural  ecstasy  or  all 
their  most  trivial  expressions  invested  with  the  dignity  of  an 
utterance  of  God.  The  woards  of  St.  Chrysostom  about  St. 
Paul — el  /cal  YlavXo?  rjv  aXk'  avOpwiro^  rjv,  and  of  St. 
Augustine  about  St.  John — “  Inspiratus  a  Deo ,  sed  tamen 
homo  ” — to  say  nothing  of  the  example  set  by  St.  Jerome 
and  some  of  the  greatest  Fathers,  show  that  there  is  no  need 

1  “Inspiration”  is  attributed  to  Bezaleel,  though,  art  was  in  its  merest 
infancy  (Ex.  xxxi.  3-6)  ;  to  men  of  ordinary  skill  in  husbandry,  though  the 
husbandry  was  quite  rudimentary  (Is.  xxviii.  24-29)  ;  to  Balaam,  Gideon, 
Othniel,  Jephtha,  Samson,  David,  Jonah,  &c.,  though  full  of  imperfections. 

2  “  Works  done  before  the  grace  of  Christ  and  the  inspiration  of  His 
Spirit.” — Art.  xiii.  “  Cleanse  the  thoughts  of  our  hearts  by  the  inspiration 
of  thy  Holy  Spirit.” — Collect  in  the  Communion  Service.  “Beseeching  Thee 
to  inspire  continually  the  Universal  Church.” — Prayer  for  the  Church  Militant. 
“Grant  .  .  .  that  by  Thy  Holy  inspiration  we  may  think  those  things  that 
be  good.” — Collect  for  Fifth  Sunday  after  Easter.  “  Come,  Hoty  Ghost,  our 
souls  inspire.” — Veni  Creator.  See,  too,  the  Homilies  for  Whitsun  Day  and 
for  Rogation  Week. 


Preface.  xxiii 

to  deny  the  moral  or  other  difficulties  which  allegory  was 
invoked  to  explain  away.  Inspiration  can  only  be  confused 
with  verbal  infallibility  by  ignoring  the  most  obvious  facts 
of  language  and  history.  Christ  only  is  the  Truth.  He 
alone  is  free  from  all  error. 

ii.  Nor  have  I  been  called  upon  to  lay  down  any  formal 
system  of  Exegesis,  though  to  a  certain  extent  the  germ  of 
one  comprehensive  system  is  involved  in  the  rejection  of 
many  which  have  hitherto  been  dominant.  If,  as  the  ancient 
interpreters  constantly  asserted,  allegory  is  not  valid  for 
purposes  of  demonstration,  and  if  nothing  is  revealed 
allegorically  which  is  not  elsewhere  revealed  unmistakably 
without  allegory,  it  is  clear  that  by  abandoning  the  allegoric 
method  we  cannot  lose  anything  essential.  Bishop  Marsh 
and  Bishop  Van  Mildert  laid  down  the  rule  that  we  need 
only  accept  those  allegories  which  are  sanctioned  by  the  New 
Testament.  But  of  allegories  which  in  any  way  resemble 
those  of  Philo  or  of  the  Fathers  and  the  Schoolmen,  I  can 
find  in  the  New  Testament  but  one.1  It  may  be  merely 
intended  as  an  argumentum  ad  hominem  ;  it  does  not  seem 
to  be  more  than  a  passing  illustration  ;  it  is  not  at  all 
essential  to  the  general  argument;  it  has  not  a  particle 
of  demonstrative  force ;  in  any  case  it  leaves  untouched 
the  actual  history.  But  whatever  view  we  take  of  it, 
the  occurrence  of  one  such  allegory  in  the  Epistle  of  St. 
Paul  no  more  sanctions  the  universal  application  of  the 
method  than  a  few  New  Testament  allusions  to  the  Haggada 
compel  us  to  accept  the  accumulations  of  the  Midrashim ;  or 
a  few  quotations  from  Greek  poets  prove  the  divine  authority 
of  all  Pagan  literature  ;  or  a  single  specimen  of  the  Atlibash 


1  Gal.  iv.  21  27. 


xxiv  Pref ace. 

in  Jeremiah  authorises  an  unlimited  application  of  the 
method  of  Notarikon.1 

And  as  we  have  rejected  the  extravagances  of  the  allegoric 
method,  we  similarly  reject  the  exaggerated  claims  of  the 
traditional  and  dogmatic  Schools  of  Exegesis.  As  for  tradi¬ 
tion,  we  trace  it  back  to  its  earliest  extant  sources,  and  find 
that  even  in  Papias  and  Irenaeus,  in  Tertullian  and 
Cyprian,  it  has  been  unanimously  rejected  by  the  Christian 
world  both  as  to  many  matters  of  fact  and  many  matters  of 
opinion.  And  as  for  Church  doctrine,  we  absolutely  accept 
the  guidance  of  those  early  and  very  simple  creeds  which 
are  unambiguously  deducible  from  the  Scriptures  them¬ 
selves,  but  we  refuse  to  make  of  Scripture  the  leaden  rule  2 
which  must  always,  and  at  all  hazards,  be  bent  into  ac¬ 
cordance  with  the  ecclesiastical  confessions  of  a  particular 
Church.  Astronomers  once  interpreted  the  facts  of  the 
sidereal  heavens  by  rules  founded  on  the  geocentric 
hypothesis.  Infinite  confusions  and  complications  resulted 
from  the  attempt  to  force  the  actual  stellar  phenomena  into 
agreement  with  that  theory  when  men  came  to  model 

« 9 * 

heaven  and  calculate  how  they  might — 

“Build,  unbuild,  contrive, 

To  save  appearances,  how  gird  the  sphere 
With  centric  and  eccentric  scribbled  o’er, 

Cycle  and  epicycle,  orb  in  orb.” 

Kepler  himself  lost  years  of  labour  by  the  a  priori  as¬ 
sumption  that  the  circle  was  a  perfect  figure,  and  that, 
therefore,  the  stars  could  only  revolve  in  circles.  The  mis 
take  of  the  Schoolmen  and  the  Post-Reformation  dogmatists 
was  analogous  to  this.  They  assumed  that  all  Scripture  must 

1  Jer.  xxv.  26  ;  li.  41.  See  infra,  Lect.  ii.,  where  these  allusions  are  fully 
explained. 

2  ''Clcnrep  kcl\  rf/s  A eafilas  olKo$up.ris  6  /j.o\v&8ivos  Kavwv.  npbs  yap  rb  vyi )/j.a 
tov  \l6ov  /xeTO/avetTat. — Akist.  Eth.  N.  v.  10. 


Preface . 


XXV 


be  absolutely  perfect  down  to  its  minutest  details.  They 
argued  that  the  whole  cause  of  religion  was  lost  if  it  could 
be  proved — as  in  course  of  time  it  was  proved  to  their  com¬ 
plete  confusion — that  the  sacred  text  abounded  in  various 
readings  due  to  the  carelessness,  the  ignorance,  or  the  bias  of 
scribes,  and  that  the  Masoretic  points,  so  far  from  being 
“inspired,”  were  comparatively  modern.  They  used  the 
whole  system  of  mediaeval  Catholicism,  or  of  Lutheran  and 
Reformed  confessions,  not  only  to  suggest,  but  to  dictate 
the  results  of  a  nominally  unfettered  inquiry.  In  this  way 
they  strove,  but  happily  in  vain,  to  render  impossible  the 
growth  and  progress  of  religious  thought.  He  who  would 
study  Scripture  in  its  integrity  and  purity  must  approach 
the  sacred  page  “  with  a  mind  washed  clean  from  human 
opinions.” 

If  the  Bible  as  a  whole  possesses  a  divine  authority  that 
authority  must  rest  on  its  inherent  nature  and  its  actual 
phenomena,  not  on  the  theories  and  inventions  of  men  re¬ 
specting  it.  “Whatever  excellence  there  is  in  it,”  said  a 
wise  and  holy  modern  philanthropist,  “  will  be  fireproof;  and 
if  any  portion  of  it  be  obsolete  or  spurious,  let  that  portion  be 
treated  accordingly.”  We  may  therefore  assume  that  all 
Exegesis  must  be  unsound  which  is  not  based  on  the  literal, 
grammatical,  historical  contextual  sense  of  the  sacred  writers. 
It  is  an  exegetic  fraud  to  invest  with  their  authority  the 
conclusions  at  which  we  only  arrive  by  distorting  the  plain 
significance  of  their  words.  It  is  the  duty  of  an  Exegete  to 
explain,  and  not  to  explain  away.  If  the  Revelation  of  God  has 
come  to  us  in  great  measure  through  a  Book  set  in  time,  place, 
and  human  conditions,  it  is  impossible  that  we  should  rightly 
apprehend  the  meaning  of  that  Book  otherwise  than  by 
linguistic  and  literary  laws.  Only  by  studying  the  temporary 


xx  vi  Preface. 

setting  can  we  reach  the  eternal  verity.  And  if  it  be  objected 
that  this  is  to  interpret  the  Bible  as  we  interpret  any  other 
hook,  we  will  not  merely  answer  that  the  necessity  foi  such 
a  rule  has  been  admitted  by  some  of  the  wisest  alike  of  the 
Rabbis,  the  Fathers,  and  the  Reformers,  but  will  say  that 
from  such  a  formula  fairly  apprehended  there  is  no  need  to 
shrink.  The  Bible  indeed  is  not  a  common  hook.  It  is 
a  book  supreme  and  unique,  which  will  ever  be  reckoned 
among  the  divinest  gifts  of  God  to  man.  But  yet,  being  a 
book,  or  rather  a  collection  of  books,  it  can  only  be  inter¬ 
preted  as  what  it  is.  The  ordinary  methods  of  modern 
criticism,  ratified  as  they  are  by  the  teaching  of  histoiy, 
afford  to  us  the  best  means  of  discovering,  across  the  chasm 
of  the  Ages,  both  the  original  meaning  of  the  sacred  writers 
and  whatever  admissible  indications  of  other  and  larger 
meanings  may  be  involved  in  what  they  taught. 

My  main  wish  and  object  has  been  to  show  the  true  basis 
whereon  rests  the  sacredness  of  Holy  Scripture.  So  far  from 
detracting  from  the  infinite  preciousness  of  the  truths  which 
we  can  learn  from  Scripture. best — and  often  from  Scripture 
only — I  earnestly  desire  to  rescue  those  truths  from  the 
confusions  and  perversions  to  which  they  are  still  subjected. 
It  is  because  there  is  no  Book  and  no  Literature  which  can 
for  a  moment  supply  the  place  of  the  Bible  in  the  moral 
and  spiritual  education  of  mankind  that  I  would  do  my 
utmost  to  save  it  from  the  injury  of  false  theories  and  im¬ 
possible  interpretations.  But  it  is  impossible  not  to  see  that 
they  who  have  approached  it  in  the  spirit  of  freedom  have 
served  it  best.  How  rich  and  varied  are  the  testimonies 
which  might  be  collected  from  every  quarter  to  its  potency 
of  influence  !  When  Dean  Stanley  was  visiting  the  foremost 
of  modern  exegetes,  a  New  Testament  which  was  lying  on 


Preface.  xxvii 

tlio  table  accidentally  fell  to  the  ground.  “  In  this  Book,”  said 
Heinrich  von  Ewald,  as  he  stooped  to  pick  it  up,  “  in  this 
Book  is  contained  all  the  wisdom  of  the  world/’  “  That  Book, 
sir,”  said  the  American  President,  Andrew  Jackson,  pointing 
to  the  family  Bible  during  his  last  illness,  “  is  the  rock  on 
which  our  Republic  rests.”  “I  fear  you  are  ill,”  said 
Hr.  Latham  to  Faraday  whom  he  found  in  tears  with  his 
hand  resting  on  an  open  book.  “It  is  not  that,”  said 
Faraday  with  a  sob,  ‘  but  why  will  people  go  astray  when 
they  have  this  blessed  Book  to  guide  them  ?  ”  1  “  This 

collection  of  books,”  said  Theodore  Parker,  “  has  taken  such 
a  hold  on  the  world  as  no  other.  The  literature  of  Greece, 
which  goes  up  like  incense  from  that  land  of  temples  and 
heroic  deeds,  has  not  half  the  influence  of  this  book.  It  goes 
equally  to  the  cottage  of  the  plain  man  and  the  palace  of  the 
king.  It  is  woven  into  the  literature  of  the  scholar  and 
colours  the  talk  of  the  streets.”  “How,”  asks  Professor 
Huxley,  “  is  the  religious  feeling,  which  is  the  essential  basis 
of  conduct,  to  be  kept  up  in  the  present  utterly  chaotic  state 
of  opinion  .  .  .  without  the  use  of  the  Bible  ?  The  pagan 
moralists  lack  life  and  colour,  and  even  the  noble  Stoic, 
Marcus  Antoninus,  is  too  high  and  refined  for  an  ordinary 
child.  By  the  study  of  what  other  book  could  children 
be  so  much  humanised  and  made  to  feel  that  each  figure  in 
the  vast  historical  procession  fills,  like  themselves,  but  a 
momentary  space  in  the  interval  between  two  eternities,  and 
earns  the  blessings  or  the  curses  of  ail  time  according  to  its 
efforts  to  do  good  and  hate  evil  ?  ”  2  These  various  voices  do 
but  repeat  the  calm  judgment  of  Hooker,  “  There  is  scarcely 
any  noble  part  of  knowledge  worthy  the  mind  of  man  but 

The  anecdote  was  told  me  by  Professor  Acland,  who  heard  it  from 
Dr.  Latham.  2  Contemp.  Rev.  Dec.  1870. 


xxviil  Preface. 

from  Scripture  it  may  have  some  direction  and  light/’ 1  No 
man  would  endorse  more  heartily  than  I  the  words  of  our 
translators  of  1611,  “  If  we  be  ignorant,  the  Scriptures  will 
instruct  us  ;  if  out  of  the  way,  they  will  bring  us  home ;  if  out 
of  order,  they  will  reform  us  ;  if  in  heaviness,  comfort  us  ;  if 
dull,  quicken  us ;  if  cold,  inflame  us.  Tolle ,  lege.  Polle,  lege. 
Yet,  while  we  echo  all  these  glowing  eulogies  and  many  more, 
we  do  not  forget  the  warning  of  the  great  and  pre-eminently 
“judicious”  theologian  whom  I  have  just  quoted,  “Whatsoever 
is  spoken  of  God,  or  things  pertaining  to  God,  otherwise  than 
as  the  truth  is,  though  it  seem  an  honour,  it  is  an  injury.”2 

Many  readers,  discouraged  by  the  apparently  negative 
character  of  much  that  is  here  dwelt  upon,  may  peihaps 
desire  a  fuller  development  of  the  positive  side  of  the  truth 
respecting  the  Scriptures.  In  proof  that  1  deeply  sympathise 
with  that  desire,  I  may  be  surely  allowed  to  appeal  to  a 
series  of  works,  spread  over  a  space  of  twenty  years,  in  which 
I  have  devoted  my  best  thoughts  and  most  earnest  labour  to 
develop  and  elucidate  the  truths  taught  in  the  Book  of  Books. 
No  generous  mind  will  condemn  me,  if,  in  proof  that  no 
purely  negative  or  destructive  criticism  would  have  my 
sympathy  or  express  my  feelings,  I  humbly  venture  to 
refer  to  my  commentaries  on  St.  Luke  and  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  to  the  Life  of  Christ ,  the  Life  of  St.  Paul,  the 
Parly  Pays  of  Christianity ,  and  the  Messages  of  the  Boohs. 

There  only  remains  the  pleasant  duty  of  offering  my  best 
thanks  to  those  who  have  so  kindly  helped  me  by  their 
suggestions  or  in  other  ways  during  the  preparation  of  these 
Lectures.  To  my  kind  and  learned  friend  Prof.  A.  S.  Farrar, 
D.D.,  Canon  of  Durham,  I  am  peculiarly  indebted  for  valu¬ 
able  advice  and  assistance,  of  which  I  shall  always  retain  a 

2  Eccl.  Pol.  II.  viii.  7. 


1  Eccl.  Pol.  III.  iv.  1. 


Preface.  xxix 

very  grateful  remembrance.  I  have  also  to  tender  my  sincere 
acknowledgments— of  which  they  will  forgive  the  very  in¬ 
adequate  expression— to  the  Dean  of  Wells,  the  Dean  of 
Westminster,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Wace,  Mr.  W.  Aldis  Wright,  the 
Rev.  J.  Lupton,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Stanley  Leathes,  the  Rev.  J.  LI. 
Davies,  the  Yen.  Archdeacon  Norris,  Mr.  P.  J.  Hershon,  and 
other  friends  who  have  given  me  the  advantage  of  their  criti¬ 
cisms  or  suggestions.  No  part  of  my  labour  has  caused  me 
more  pleasure  than  the  fact  that  it  should  call  forth  the  kind 
interest  of  those  whom  I  have  long  honoured  and  esteemed. 

In  a  work  which  covers  such  vast  periods  of  time  and 
which  involves  so  many  hundreds  of  references  it  would  be 
absurd  to  suppose  that  I  have  escaped  from  errors.  All  that 
I  can  say  is  that  in  this,  as  in  my  other  works,  I  have 
done  not  perhaps  the  best  that  I  might  have  done  under 
more  favourable  conditions  of  leisure  and  opportunity — but 
the  best  that  was  possible  to  me  under  such  circumstances  as 
I  could  command.  If  in  the  following  pages  I  shall  have 
offended  any,  I  am  heartily  sorry  for  every  ground  of  offence 
which  may  have  been  caused  by  my  own  defective  modes  of 
statement  or  expression,  and  I  beg  the  indulgent  con¬ 
sideration  of  all  who  believe  that  I  am  actuated  solely  by 
the  desire  to  do  nothing  against  the  truth,  but  for  the  truth. 

I  cannot,  indeed,  regret  a  single  word  which  has  been  spoken 
under  the  strong  conviction  that  it  ought  to  be  spoken,  I 
have  never  sought  to  please  men  :  but  to  the  Lord  of  the 
Church,  to  Him  who  standeth  in  the  midst  of  the  seven 
golden  candlesticks,  I  cry  in  deep  humility :  “  Coram  te 
est  scientia  et  ignorantia  mea ;  ubi  mihi  aperuisti  suscipe 
intrantem ;  ubi  clausisti  aperi  pulsanti.” 

Frederic  W.  Farrar. 


St.  Margaret’s  Rectory, 
Westminster ,  July  1885. 


CHRONOLOGY 

RELATING  TO  BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION. 

Ezra,  b.c.  457 
The  Septuagint,  277. 

Aristobulns  about  100. 


Hillel,  d.  a.d.  8 
Philo,  d.  40. 

Aqiba,  d.  135. 

Clement  of  Rome,  about  95  a.d. 
Pseudo-Barnabas,  about  100. 

Josephus,  d.  100. 

Justin  Martyr,  164. 

“Rabbi,”  d.  200. 

Irenaeus,  d.  202. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  d.  about  21 G. 
Tertullian,  d.  about  220. 

Origen,  d.  254. 

Cyprian,  d.  258. 

Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  d.  340. 

Athanasius,  d.  373. 

Ephraem  Syrus,  d.  378. 

Basil,  d.  379. 

Ambrose,  d.  397. 

Chrysostom,  d.  407. 

Jerome,  d.  420. 

Rabbi  Ashi,  d.  427. 

Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  d.  429. 

Augustine,  d.  430. 

Theodoret,  d.  457. 

Talmud  k  Targums,  4th  and  5th  Cent. 
Pseudo-Dionysius,  c.  500. 

Gregory  I„  d.  604. 

Bede,  d.  735. 

John  Damascenus,  about  7 56. 

Walafrid  Strabo,  849.  {Qlossa  Or  dinar  ia, 
J.  Scotus  Erigena,  d.  875. 


abridged  from  Rabanus 
Maurus. ) 


XXX11 


Chronology  Relating  to 


Anselm,  d.  1109. 

Theophylact,  about  1112. 

Anselm  of  Laon  (Glossa  Inter  linear  is),  d.  1117. 

Bupert  of  Deutz,  d.  1135. 

Hugo  de  S.  Victore,  d.  1141. 

Abelard,  d.  1142. 

Bernard,  d.  1153. 

Peter  Lombard,  d.  1164. 

Bichard  de  S.  Victore,  d.  1173. 

Euthymius  Zigabenus,  12th  Cent. 

Spanish  school  of  Jews— Rashi,  Abenezra,  Kimchi,  12th  Cent. 
Maimonides,  d.  1204. 

Aquinas’  Catenae ,  1250. 

Hugo  de  St.  Caro  (Postilla),  d.  1263. 

Thomas  Aquinas,  d.  1274. 

Bona ventura,  d.  1274. 

Albertus  Magnus,  d.  1280. 

Nicolas  de  Lyra,  d.  1340. 

"William  of  Occam,  d.  1347. 

Wiclif,  d.  1384. 

Hus,  d.  1415. 

Valla,  d.  1465. 

Ximenes,  d.  1517. 

Eeuchlin,  d.  1522. 

Tyndale’s  New  Testament,  1526. 

Zwingli,  d.  1531. 

Cajetan,  d.  1534. 

Erasmus,  d.  1536. 

The  Great  Bible,  1539. 

Council  of  Trent,  1545.  ^ 

Luther,  d.  1546. 

Calvin,  d.  1564. 

Maldonatus,  d.  1583. 

Sixtus  Senensis,  about  1560. 

Geneva  Bible,  1560. 

Cornelius  ii  Lapide,  d.  1657. 

Douai  Bible,  1609. 

Authorised  Version,  1611. 

Estius,  d.  1613. 

Mede,  d.  1638. 

Grotius,  d.  1645. 

S.  Glass,  d.  1656. 

Calixt,  d.  1656. 

Hammond,  d.  1660. 

Critici  Sacri,  1661.  Edited  by  Pearson. 

Poole’s  Synopsis  Criticorum,  1669-1676. 

Cocceius,  d.  1669. 

Lightfoot,  d.  1675. 

Calovius,  d.  1686. 


Biblical  Interpretation. 

L.  Cappell,  d.  1658. 

Spinoza,  d.  1677. 

Spener,  d.  1705. 

Patrick,  d.  1707. 

R.  Simon,  d.  1712. 

Vitringa,  d.  1722. 

Rambach,  d.  about  1780. 
Clericus,  d.  1736. 

Schoettgen,  about  1750. 
Ugolini’s  Theasurus,  1743-1715. 
Bengei,  d.  1752. 

Wetstein,  d.  1754. 

Calmet,  d.  1757. 

Carpzov,  d.  1767. 

Ernesti,  d.  1781. 

Lessing,  d.  1781. 

Moses  Mendelssohn,  d.  1786. 
Michaelis,  d.  1791. 

Bp.  Lowth,  d.  1787. 

Sender,  d.  1791. 

Rosenmiiller,  J.  G.  1815. 
Herder,  d.  1803. 

Kant,  d.  1804. 

Horsley,  d.  1806. 

Jahn,  d.  1816. 

De  Wette,  1830. 

Hegel,  d.  1831. 

Schleiermacher,  d.  1834. 

S.  T.  Coleridge,  d.  1834. 

E.  F.  C.  Rosenmiiller,  1835. 
Neander,  d.  1850. 

Ferd.  Chr.  Baur,  d.  1861. 
Strauss,  d.  1874. 

Ewald,  d.  1875. 


o 


j 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


LECTURE  I. 

SUCCESS  AND  FAILURE  OF  EXEGESIS,  pp.  1—43. 


Tlie  necessity  of  Exegesis . 

Difficulty  of  the  task . 

Need  of  fearlessness  and  honesty 

Object  of  these  Lectures . 

Obsolete  views . 

Danger  of  conventional  apology . 

Manifoldness  of  Scripture . 

Not  to  be  treated  as  an  idol . 

l'  The  History  of  Interpretation  to  a  large  extent  a  history  of  errors 
Tested  by  “  the  survival  of  the  fittest  ” 

Tested  by  the  Hegelian  principle . 

The  lessons  of  History . 

Illustrations . 

Causes  of  non-natural  Exegesis 

Growth  of  alien  rites . 

Development  of  religious  opinions . 

Illustrations . 

IL  Seven  main  periods  of  Interpretation . 

Gradual  advance  of  knowledge 

Supremacy  of  the  Bible . 

What  we  may  learn  from  the  past 

Sufficiency  of  Scripture  . 

Gains  of  Exegesis . 

Unshaken  influence  of  Scripture 

III.  Perils  of  misinterpretation . 

Baseless  Hermeneutic  rules . 

1.  Rabbinism.  The  seven  rules  of  Hillel  . 

Abuses  to  which  they  led . 

2.  Alexandrianism.  The  rules  of  Philo 

Their  futility . 


PAGE 

.  .  3 

.  .  4 

.  .  5 

.  .  6 

.  .  id. 

id. 

■  -  7 

■  .  8 

id. 

9 

id. 

.  10 

id. 

.  11 
.  id. 

id. 

id. 

.  12 
.  13 

.  id. 

.  14 

.  15 

.  id. 

.  16 
.  17 

.  18 
.  19 

20—22 
.  22 
.  23 


c 


2 


XXXVI 


Table  of  Contents . 


PAGE 

3.  Rules  of  Tichonius . 23  26 

4.  Mistaken  views  in  later  epochs . 26,  27 

IY.  The  task  of  the  Expositor  .  . . 

Erroneous  views  of  Inspiration .  28 

Need  for  their  correction . 29,  30 

Y.  False  results  of  Exegesis . 

Whole  .books  misunderstood . 

The  Book  of  Ecclesiastes . 

The  Song  of  Solomon . 32,  33 

Misinterpretations  of  the  first  verse  of  the  Bible .  34 

i.  In  the  Talmud  and  other  Jewish  writings . 34—37 

ii.  In  Philo .  37 

iii.  In  the  Fathers .  38 

iv.  Exegesis  very  fallible . id- 

v.  Terrible  results  of  misinterpretation  .  . 38 — 41 

Perversions  of  Scripture .  42 

True  sacredness  and  right  use  of  Scripture . 42,  43 


LECTURE  II. 

RABBINIC  EXEGESIS ,  pp.  47—107. 

All  ancient  books  need  explanation .  47 

Traces  of  interpretation  in  the  Old  Testament .  48 

The  spirit  of  the  Prophets . 48,  49 

The  spirit  of  the  Scribes . ^ .  50 

I.  How  the  change  was  brought  about  .  , .  51 

Ezra,  the  founder  of  Judaism  proper . 51 — 53 

Inferiority  of  Ezra  to  the  Prophets .  53 

Permanence  of  Ezra’s  work . 54 — 56 

II.  The  birth  of  ceremonialism . 56,  57 

A  new  idolatry .  57 

Servile  legalism .  58 

The  commandments  of  men .  59 

The  Law  deified  and  superseded .  60 

Tyranny  of  Rabbinism . id- 

Glorification  of  the  Law .  61 

Subordinated  to  Tradition . 62,  63 

Scripture  History  explained  away .  63 

Rabbinic  casuistry .  64 

Sacrifice  of  the  spirit  to  the  letter .  . id. 

III.  Chiefs  of  the  schools .  65 

1.  Hillel.  His  life  and  work . id. 

Hillel  contrasted  with  Christ . 


Table  of  Contents. 


XXXVll 


PAGE 

2.  Shammai.  A  narrow  formalist .  67 

3.  JOHANAN  BEN  ZAKKAI .  68 

His  mildness  and  his  services .  69 

Restoration  of  an  impossible  religion .  70 

4.  Aqiba . 70  —78 

His  exorbitant  method .  71 

Legends  of  his  life .  72 

His  exegetic  system . 73,  74 

Mystic  kabbalism .  74 

Letter  worship .  P5 

Fantastic  explanations .  76 

Rebellion  of  Barkokhba .  77 

Fate  of  Aqiba .  78 

5.  Rabbi  Juda  the  Holy . id. 

His  work .  79 

The  Mishna .  80 

“  The  hedge  around  the  law  ”  .  . .  81 

6.  The  Jerusalem  Talmud . t  ...  .  id. 

The  Babylonian  Talmud .  82 

7.  Mediaeval  Rabbis .  83 

IV.  Results  of  Rabbinic  Exegesis . 

The  Halakha . .  ,  .  . '84 

Its  minuteness .  85 

Legal  disputes  and  contradictions . 85,  86 

Indefinite  development . 87 

Supremacy  of  precedent . .  .  , .  88 

The  Haggada .  89 

Its  gradual  growth .  90 

Its  objects .  91 

V.  The  Talmud . 91 — 94 

Its  mixed  character .  92 

Its  elements .  93 

Evils  of  Talmudism .  94 

VI.  The  Midrashim . . . 

The  four  methods,  PaRDeS .  95 

The  Qabbala .  96 

Its  baselessness .  97 

Its  rules . id. 

i.  Gematria .  98 

Illustrations . 98 — 100 

“ Architectonic ”  and  “figurative”  Gematria . 100 

ii.  Notarikon  . 101 

iii.  Temoorah  . 102 

Specimens  of  Athbash,  &c.,  in  the  Bible . 103 

Atbach.  Prov.  xxix.  21 . 104 

Arbitrary  changes  of  reading . 104,  105 


XXXVlll 


Table  of  Contents. 


TAQE 

VII.  Saddening  results . 105 

Effects  of  Talmudism . 106 

Christ’s  judgment  respecting  it . 10/ 

LECTURE  III. 

ALEXANDRIAN  EXEGESIS ,  pp.  111—158. 

Divergent  tendencies  of  Palestinian  and  Alexandrian  exegesis . Ill 

I.  Providential  aim  of  the  Dispersion . 112 

Widened  sympathies  of  the  Jews . 113 

Alexandria . 114 

Privileges  of  Alexandrian  Jews . 115 

Desire  for  a  translation  of  the  Law . 116 

II.  The  Septtjagint . 116 — 125 

Its  good  effects . 116 

Its  influence  on  Christians . 117 

Necessary  defects  of  a  translation . id. 

Jewish  dislike  of  the  LXX . 118 

Other  versions  . . 119 

Variations  of  the  LXX.  from  the  Hebrew  .  . . id. 

Dislike  of  anthropomorphism . 120 

Deliberate  alterations . 121 

Mistakes . 122 

Belief  in  its  inspired  character . id. 

Errors  into  which  it  led  the  Fathers . 123,  124 

Jer.  xi.  19  ;  xvii.  9  ;  Ps.’xcvi.  10  ;  Hab.  ii.  11 . 123 

Hab.  iii.  2  ;  Ps.  xcii.  12  ;  Nah.  i.  9 . 124 

Jon.  iii.  4 . 125 

Qeren  Happuk . id. 

The  Book  of  Wisdom . 126 

Semi-ethnic  Jewish  writings . id. 

Josephus  and  other  writers . 127 

III.  The  allegorical  method . id. 

i.  Pseudo- Aristeas . 128 

ii.  Aristobulus . id. 

Two  false  views — 

* 

i.  That  Greek  philosophers  learnt  from  the  Jews  .  .  .  129 

ii.  That  Greek  philosophy  is  to  be  found  in  the  Penta¬ 

teuch  . 130 

IV.  Causes  of  the  allegoric  method . 131 — 136 

It  rose  from  the  contact  of  Greek  with  Jewish  thought  .  .  .  131 

A  Jewish  Renaissance . 132 

Eclectic  tendencies . 133 

Illustrations  .  ...  134 


Table  of  Contents. 


XXXIX 


V.  The  Allegoric  method  borrowed  from  the  Stoics . 134 

Homer  allegorically  explained  .  .  . . 135 

Development  of  the  method  by  the  Alexandrians . 136 

\  I.  Philo . 136—157 

Three  exegetic  schools .  437 

Philo’s  eclecticism .  437  433 

His  views  on  the  literal  sense . 439 

His  perversion  of  Scripture . 44O 

Travesties  of  Scripture  Histories . 444 

Philo’s  theology .  442 

VII.  On  the  Allegories  of  the  Sacred  Laws . 443,  444 

Specimens  of  Philonian  allegory . 145 

Variable  symbols . . 

Exegetic  nullity .  447 

Philo’  's  views  of  Inspiration . id. 

Flexibility  of  the  theorj7 . 443 

VIII.  Scriptural  arguments  in  favour  of  his  methods . 149 

1.  Stoic  rules  for  excluding  the  literal  sense . 149,  150 

2.  Rules  for  including  the  allegorical  sense . 150 

3.  Alterations  of  the  text . id. 

4.  Inferences  from  synonyms . 151 

5.  Plays  on  words . id. 

6.  Emphasis  of  particles,  &c . id. 

Results  of  his  system  . . 152 

Merits  of  Philo . id. 

Falseness  of  his  methods . 153 

Emptiness  of  results . 154 

Necessary  futility  of  such  systems . 155 

What  led  him  to  adopt  allegory . id. 

Legacy  of  Alexandrianism . 156 

IX.  A  divine  progress  in  the  midst  of  error . 157,  153 

LECTURE  IV. 

PATRISTIC  EXEGESIS,  pp.  161—242. 

The  Promise  of  the  Spirit . 161 

The  obvious  limitations . 162 

Value  of  the  Fathers . 163 

Scornful  language  objectionable . 163 

Difficulties  of  the  Fathers . 164 

Their  inevitable  deficiencies . 165 

I.  The  Apostolic  Fathers . 165 — 170 

1.  St.  Clement  of  Rome . 166 

2.  The  Epistle  of  Barnabas . 167 


xl  Table  of  Contents. 

PAGE 

His  Christian  Kabbalism . 168 

His  strange  fancies . 169 

His  “gnosis” . 170 

3.  H  ermas  and  others . 171 

4.  St.  Justin  Martyr . 172—174 

His  arbitrary  applications . 173 

His  exegesis  artificial . 174 

5.  St.  Iren-eus . 174 — 177 

His  excellent  remarks . 175 

His  “tradition”  proved  valueless . 176 

II.  Three  exegetical  schools . 177 

1.  Tertullian . 177 — 180 

His  characteristics . •  .  .  178 

His  arrogant  dogmatism . 179 

His  appeal  to  “  tradition  ” . 180 

2.  St.  Cyprian . ISO — 182 

His  strange  method  of  argument . 181 

His  wav  of  treating  Scripture . 182 

III.  The  School  of  Alexandria .  182 — 203 

Clement  of  Alexandria . 183—187 

Characteristics  of  his  system . 185 

His  allegoric  fancies . 186 

Views  about  “  accommodation  ” . 187 

IV.  Origen .  187 — 203 

His  misfortunes . 187 

His  greatness . 188 

Survival  of  error . 189 

His  mistaken  assumptions  . . 190 

His  difficulties . 191,  192 

His  theories  of  exegesis . 193 

His  views  about  the  literal  sense . 194 

His  untenable  arguments . 195 

His  allegoric  system . 196 

Probable  inventor  of  “the  threefold  sense  ” . 197 

His  arbitrariness . 198 

Illustrations  of  his  exegesis . 199 

Allegory  applied  to  the  New  Testament . 200 

V.  Immense  influence  of  Origen  . . 201 — 2t)3 

VL  St.  Hilary . 203 

Specimens  of  his  exegesis . 204 

VII.  St.  Ambrose . 205 

VIII.  Dionysius  of  Alexandria . 206 

Julius  Africaxus . 207 

IX.  Reaction  against  Allegory . 208 

Nepos  and  others . 209 

Ephraem  Syrus . id. 


Table  of  Contents.  xli 

v  m  o  page 

a.  Ihe  School  of  Antioch .  210 _ 219 

Their  rejection  of  allegory .  211 

1.  Diodorus  of  Tarsus .  212 

2.  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia . 213 _ 219 

His  defects .  214 

His  greatness . 215 

His  special  views .  216 

His  opinion  as  to  Inspiration . 217 

His  opinion  about  Prophecy . 218 

3.  Theodoret . 219 

4.  The  Cappadocian  triumvirate . id. 

5.  St.  Chrysostom .  220 _ 222 

His  eminence  as  an  Expositor . 221 

His  practical  aims . 222 

XI.  St.  Jerome .  222 _ 234 

His  greatness . 223 

i.  The  Vulgate .  223—225 

ii.  His  views  about  the  Canon . 225 

iii.  His  regard  for  the  literal  sense . id. 

His  defects .  225,  sqq. 

a.  His  haste . 226 

b.  His  want  of  originality . ...  227 

c.  His  bitter  prejudices .  227,  228 

d.  His  vacillations . 229 

iv.  Differences  between  his  theory  and  practice . 230 

v.  His  views  of  inspiration .  230,  231 

vi.  His  views  about  allegory  . 231 _ 234 

XII.  St.  Augustine .  234 _ 239 

His  excellent  theories . 234 

His  versatile  genius . 235 

His  defects . 236 

His  methods  untenable . 237 

His  use  of  allegory . 238 

Dangers  of  the  allegoric  method . 239 

Triumph  of  the  allegorists . 240 

High  services  rendered  by  the  Fathers .  241,  242 

LECTURE  V. 

SCHOLASTIC  EXEGESIS ,  pp.  245—303. 

The  Dark  Ages . 245 

Decadence  of  knowledge . 246 

Deepening  misinterpretation . 247 

Bede . 248 


xlii 


Table  of  Contents. 


Specimens  of  his  exegesis . 

Aloud* . 

Compilations . 

The  Glosses . 

Exegetic  nullity . 

Johannes  Scotus  Erigena  . 

His  views  .  ,  .  = . 

Beginnings  of  Scholasticism . 

St.  Bernard . 

Mysticism . - . 

Monastic  theology . 

Hugo  and  Richard  of  St.  Victor  . . 

Abelard  . 

His  views  of  inspiration . 

Peter  Lombard . 

The  *  ‘  Liber  Scntcntiarum  ” . 

Aristotle’s  works . 

Influence  of  Aristotle . 

Work  of  the  Schoolmen . 

Peculiarity  of  their  studies  . . 

Albertus  Magnus . 

His  weakness  as  an  exegete . 

St.  Thomas  Aquinas . 

His  “Catena” . 

Mistaken  ingenuity . 

St.  Bonaventura  . 

His  exegesis . 

Nicolas  of  Lyra  . . . 

He  learnt  from  Jewish  exegetes . 

His  merits . 

His  originality . 

Retrograde  tendency  of  Paulus  of  Burgos  and  others 

WiCLiFand  others . 

Tostatus  and  others  . . 

Decadence  of  Scholasticism . 

William  of  Occam . 

Revival  of  the  study  of  Plato . 

Defects  of  Scholastic  exegesis . 

1.  Vague  views  of  inspiration . 

2.  Servility  of  Scholasticism . 

3.  Lack  of  due  equipment . 

4.  Neglect  of  Philology . 

5.  Dependence  on  false  parallels . 

6.  Abuse  of  dialectics . 

7.  Barbarous  terminology . 

8.  “Vermiculate  questions” . 


PAGE 

249 

id. 

.  2'50 
.  251 
.  252 
.  253 
.  254 
.  255 
id. 

.  256 
.  257 
.  258 
.  259 
.  260 
.  261 
.  262 
.  263 
.  264 
.  265 
.  266 
.  267 
.  268 
.  .  269 
.  .  270 
.  .  271 
.  .  272 
.  .  273 
.  .  274 
.  .  275 
.  .  276 
.  .  277 
.  .  278 
.  .  id. 
.  .  279 
.  .  280 
.  .  281 
.  .  282 
.  .  283 
.  .  id. 
.  .  284 
.  .  285 
.  .  286 
.  .  287 
288,  289 
.  .  290 
.  .  291 


Table  of  Contents. 


xliii 


PAGE 

*  Faniloquium” .  292 

Frivolous  disputes .  293 

9.  The  “  multiple  sense”  of  Scripture . 294 

The  fourfold  sense .  295 

10.  Specimens  of  mediaeval  exegesis .  296 _ 298 

Indifference  of  the  laity .  298 

Interests  of  the  Papacy . 299 

The  views  of  the  English  Reformers .  299  300 

Lives  and  examples  of  the  great  Schoolmen  .  . .  301  302 

Divine  vitality  of  Scripture .  303 


LECTURE  VI. 

THE  REFORMERS,  pp.  307—354, 

“  Protestantism  ”  a  phase  of  a  great  movement 

What  the  Reformation  was . 

Services  and  degeneracy  of  the  Papacy . 

Decadence  of  religious  institutions . 

Early  Reformers . 

1.  Lorenzo  Valla . 

2.  Faber  Stapulensis . 

3.  Retjchlin . 

4.  Erasmus  . 

His  work . 

His  originality . 

His  opinions  about  Scripture . 

His  courage . 

His  Paraphrases  and  Annotations . 

His  independence . 

A  pioneer  of  the  Reformation . 

5.  Luther . 

Greatness  of  his  services . 

Stages  of  his  religious  growth . 

His  principles . 

i.  Final  authority  of  Scripture . 

ii.  Sufficiency  of  Scripture . 

iii.  Maintenance  of  the  literal  sense  .... 

iv.  Rejection  of  allegory . 

v.  Perspicuity  of  Scripture . 

vi.  Right  of  private  judgment . 

His  rules  of  Scripture  interpretation . 

1.  Necessity  for  spiritual  illumination 

2.  Analogia  fidei‘ . 

3.  Reference  of  all  Scripture  to  Christ 


.  ...  307 
.  ...  308 
.  .  308,  309 
.  .  310,  311 
.  ...  312 
.  ...  313 
.  ...  314 
.  .  314—316 
.  .  316—322 
.  ...  317 
.  .  .  .  id. 

■  ...  318 
.  ...  319 
...  320 
...  321 
...  322 
.  322—341 
...  323 
.  324,  325 
.  325—331 
.  325,  326 
...  327 
.  .  .  id. 
...  328 
.  328,  329 
.  329—331 
.  332—334 
...  332 
.  332,  333 
.  333,  334 


xliv  Table  of  Contents. 

PAGE 

Independence  of  Luther’s  attitude  towards  Scripture . 335 

Remarks  on  the  Canon . 336 

Spiritual  confidence  of  Luther . 337 

Strength  of  his  faith . 338 

His  general  principles . id. 

I.  The  “  Word  of  God  ”  not  identical  with  Scripture  .  .  .  339 

II.  “  Inspiration  ”  not  “  verbal  ” . '•  id. 

III.  “ Inspiration”  not  confined  to  Scripture . 340 

6.  Melanchthon,  Zwingli,  and  others .  341,  342 

7.  Calvin . . .  342 — 352 

i.  His  greatness  as  an  exegete .  342 — 344 

ii.  Contempt  for  exegetic  frivolity .  344,  345 

iii.  Abhorrence  of  weak  arguments .  345,  346 

iv.  His  views  of  Messianic  prophecy .  346,  347 

Not  free  from  dogmatic  bias .  347 — 349 

Vague  views  about  Inspiration . 349 

His  intolerance . 350 

His  ruthlessness . 351 

False  views  of  the  Old  Testament . 352 

8.  Immense  advance  made  by  the  Reformers . 352 

Truth  and  Freedom . 353 

Churches  need  many  Pentecosts . 354 

LECTURE  VII. 

POST-REFORMATION  EPOCH,  pp.  357—394. 

Arrest  of  the  impulse  given  to  Exegesis . 357 

I.  A  cheerless  epoch . 358 

A  threefold  evil . 359 

1.  Tyrannous  Confessionalism . id. 

Multiplication  of  symbols  and  formulae . 360 

2.  Exorbitant  systematisation . 361 

3.  Contentious  theological  bitterness .  362 — 366 

Multitudes  of  controversies . 362 

Egotistical  factiousness . 363 

Mutual  condemnations . id. 

Flacitjs  Illyricus . 364 

Abraham  Calov .  364,  365 

Abuse  of  “  proof- texts  ” . 365 

Extravagant  letter- worship . 366 

4.  Two  special  controversies . id . 

i.  The  Calvinistic  controversy . 366,  367 

ii.  The  “  Communicalio  Idiomatum  ” .  367 — 369 

5.  Biblical  supernaturalism .  369,  370 


Table  of  Contents. 


xlv 


6.  Scriptural  infallibility . 

Rathmann  . 

Advancing  Bibliolatry . 

Consequent  extravagances . 

Decay  of  spiritual  life . 

English  theologians  and  critics  .... 

II.  Dawn  of  freer  movements . 

The  deliverance  came  from  the  few 

1.  Arminianism . 

2.  Pietism . 

Philip  James  Spener . 

Other  Pietists . 

3.  Tolerance  and  culture.  Georg  Calixt 

4.  Modern  Philosophy.  Descartes,  Spinoza 

5.  Mysticism.  Jacob  Bohme . 

6.  Cocceianism.  John  Koch . 

Cocceian  Exegetes . 

7.  Modern  criticism  . . 

Louis  Cappel . 

The  Buxtorffs  and  others . 

III.  Increase  of  knowledge . 

i.  Count  Zinzendorf . 

ii.  John  James  Wetstein . 

iii.  Bengel . 

His  greatness . 

His  views  of  Scripture . 

His  death . 


PAGE 

•  .  370—372 
....  372 
.  ...  373 
.  ...  374 
.  ...  375 
.  .  376,  377 

•  ...  377 
.  ...  378 
.  ...  379 
.  .  380—382 
.  .  380,  381 
.  .  381,  382 
.  .  382,  383 
.  .  383,  384 
.  ...  384 
.  ...  385 
.  ...  386 

.  .  386—388 
.  ...  387 
.  ...  388 
.  .  388,  389 
.  .  389,  390 
.  ...  391 
.  392—394 
.  ...  392 
...  393 
...  394 


LECTURE  VIII. 

MODERN  EXEGESIS,  pp.  397—437. 

Difficulties  of  the  subject . 

Disruption  of  Protestant  Scholasticism . 

Leibnitz  and  Wolff . 

Lessing . 

Reimarus  and  Barhdt . 

Feebleness  of  the  apologists . 

Gellert  . 

Haller . 

Euler  . 

The  critical  school— Mich aelis,  Ernesti,  Eichhom,  Paulus 
Semler  . 

Views  of  Semler . 

Abuse  of  “accommodation” 


.  .  399 
.  .  400 
.  .  401 
.  .  id. 

.  .  402 
.  .  id. 

.  .  402 
402—405 
.  .  403 
.  .  404 


xlvi  Table  of  Contents. 

PAGE 

Herder . 405 — 407 

His  Humanism . 405 

His  views  of  Scripture . 406 

His  work  imperfect . 407 

Kant .  407,  408 

Fichte . 409 

SCHLEIERMACHER . .  409 — 411 

His  influence  on  theology . 410 

His  followers . 411 

Hegel . id. 

His  followers . 412 

Strauss . 413 

Ferd.  Chr.  Baur  and  the  School  of  Tubingen . 414 

Neander . 414,  415 

Failure  of  Strauss  and  Baur . 415,  416 

The  orthodox  reaction . 417 

Enlarged  views  . . 418 

Biblical  studies.  Tholttck,  &c . 419 

Great  German  Exegetes  and  Theologians . 420 

English  Theologians  and  Exegetes .  420,  421 

Yiews  of  Inspiration . 421 

Samuel  Taylor  Coleridge . 422 

Extent  of  his  influence . 423 

Teachers  whom  he  influenced . 423,  424 

Results  of  their  labours  .  .  .  . . 424 

Necessity  for  Progress . 425 

Growth  of  modern  Science  . . 426 

Attitude  of  Theology  towards  Science . 427 

Advance  of  the  human  intellect  .  428 

Growth  of  the  science  of  criticism . id. 

Its  effects  on  the  study  of  Scripture . 429 

Critical  questions . 430 

The  tests  of  revelation . id. 

Use  and  misuse  of  Scripture . 431 

The  Gospel  of  the  poor  and  simple . 432 

Co-ordinate  claims  of  Faith . 433 

Christ  the  one  Interpreter . 434 

Christ  and  the  Scribes  .  . . 435 

Sacredness  of  truth  and  love . 436 

Porro  unum  necessarium . id. 

Last  words . 437 


Tabid*  of  Contents.  xlvii 


NOTES. 

NOTES  TO  LECTUEE  II 

PAGE 

Note  I.— Self-glorification  of  the  Eabbis . 444 

Some  of  their  titles .  442 

Note  II. — The  Targums  and  Midrashim . 442—444 

Note  III. — Eabbi  Johanan  ben  Zakkai .  444 

Note  IY. — Exegetic  and  Symbolic  Kabbalism . 445 _ 445 

1.  Gematria .  445 

2.  NotariJcon .  440, 

3.  Inferences  from  changing  the  reading . id. 

4.  Importance  attached  to  letters . 447 

5.  Inferences  from  the  repetition  of  words . 'id. 

6.  Inferences  from  impersonal  verbs . 448 

7.  Inferences  from  plurals . id. 

Miscellaneous .  ^ 

Note  Y.— The  Karaites . .  449  450 

Note  YI. — The  Massora .  4^0 

Note  YII. — Talmudic  Cryptographs . 454 

NOTES  TO  LECTUEE  III. 

Note  I. — Philo’s  use  of  the  Septuagint .  452 

Note  II.  The  exegetical  principles  of  Josephus .  4525  453 

Note  III. — The  Septuagint  Yersion .  453—455 

Note  IY.  Philo’s  phrases  for  the  literal  and  allegoric  sense  .  .  .  455,  456 
Note  Y. — Philo  and  Messianic  Hopes . 457,  453 

NOTE  TO  LECTUEE  IY. 

Patristic  reasons  for  ad  op  ting  Allegory .  459,  460 

NOTES  TO  LECTUEE  Y. 

Note  I. — Mediaeval  Jewish  commentators . 404 _ 454 

E.  Saadia  Gaon .  404 

Rashi . . 

Eashbam .  ^ 

Juda  Ha-Levi .  ^7 

Ibn  Ezra .  ^ 

Maimonides . . 


xlviii  Table  of  Contents. 

PAGES 

The  Qimchis . 

Joseph  Albo . ^ 

Abrabanel . 

Elias  Levita . 

Note  II. — Titles  of  the  Schoolmen . 465 

Note  III. — Origin  of  Scholasticism . 466  468 

Note  IV.— The  Sic  ei  non  of  Abelard . 468,  469 

Note  Y.— The  abuse  of  “Parallel  passages” .  469,  470 

Note  YT.— Opinions  on  Scholasticism . 4/0 


NOTES  TO  LECTURE  YI. 

Note  I. — Remarks  of  Luther  on  the  Fathers . 471 

Note  II. — Calvin's  notes  on  Messianic  Passages . 472 


NOTE  TO  LECTURE  Till. 

Some  Exegetic  rules  and  principles .  473—476 

BIBLIOGRAPHY .  479—489 


EXTRACT 

FROM  THE  LAST  MILL  AND  TESTAMENT 


OF  THE  LATE 

REV.  JOHN  HAMPTON, 

CANON  OF  SALISBURY. 


- “  I  give  and  bequeath  my  Lands  and  Estates  to  the 

Chancellor,  blasters,  and  Scholars  of  the  L  mversitv  of 

«/ 

Oxford  for  ev er,  to  ha^  e  and  to  hold  all  and  singular 
“  said  Lands  or  Estates  upon  trust,  and  to  the  intents 
“ and  purposes  hereinafter  mentioned;  that  is  to  say,  I 
“will  and  appoint  that  the  Vice-Chancellor  of  the  Uni¬ 
versity  of  Oxford  for  the  time  being  shah  take  and 
“  receive  all  the  rents,  issues,  and  profits  thereof,  and  (after 
“  all  taxes,  reparations,  and  necessary  deductions  made) 

“  that  be  pay  all  the  remainder  to  the  endowment  of  ei°ht 

o 

“  Divinity  Lecture  Sermons,  to  be  established  for  ever  in 
the  said  Lniversity,  and  to  be  performed  in  the  manner 
“  following : 

O 

“I  direct  and  appoint,  that,  upon  the  first  Tuesday  in 
“  Easter  Term,  a  Lecturer  be  yearly  chosen  by  the  Heads 

d 


1  Extract  from  Canon  Bamptons  Will. 

“of  Colleges  only,  and  by  no  others,  in  the  room  ad¬ 
joining  to  the  Printing-House,  between  the  hours  of  ten 
“  in  the  morning  and  two  in  the  afternoon,  to  preach  eight 
“  Divinity  Lecture  Sermons,  the  year  following,  at  St. 
“  Mary’s  in  Oxford,  between  the  commencement  of  the  last 
“  month  in  Lent  Term,  and  the  end  of  the  third  week 
“in  Act  Term. 

“Also  I  direct  and  appoint,  that  the  eight  Divinity 
“  Lecture  Sermons  shall  be  preached  upon  either  of  the 
“  following  Subjects — to  confirm  and  establish  the  Christian 
“  Faith,  and  to  confute  all  heretics  and  schismatics — upon 
“the  divine  authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures — upon  the 
“authority  of  the  writings  of  the  primitive  Fathers,  as 
“to  the  faith  and  practice  of  the  primitive  Church — upon 
“  the  Divinity  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  J esus  Christ — upon 
“  the  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost — upon  the  Articles  of 
“the  Christian  Faith,  as  comprehended  in  the  Apostles’ 
“and  Nicene  Creeds. 

“Also  I  direct,  that  thirty  copies  of  the  eight  Divinity 
“  Lecture  Sermons  shall  be  always  printed  within  two 
“  months  after  they  are  preached ;  and  one  copy  shall 
“be  given  to  the  Chancellor  of  the  University,  and  one 
“copy  to  the  Head  of  every  College,  and  one  copy  to 
“the  Mayor  of  the  city  of  Oxford,  and  one  copy  to  be 
“  put  into  the  Bodleian  Library ;  and  the  expense  of  print¬ 
ing  them  shall  be  paid  out  of  the  revenue  of  the  Land 
“or  Estates  given  for  establishing  the  Divinity  Lecture 


Extract  from  Canon  Bamptons  Will  li 

“  Sermons ;  and  the  Preacher  shall  not  be  paid,  nor  be 
“entitled  to  the  revenue,  before  they  are  printed. 

“Also  I  direct  and  appoint,  that  no  person  shall  be 
“  qualified  to  preach  the  Divinity  Lecture  Sermons,  unless 
“he  hath  taken  the  degree  of  Master  of  Arts  at  least, 
“in  one  of  the  two  Universities  of  Oxford  or  Cambridge* 

o  i 

“  and  that  the  same  person  shall  never  preach  the  Divinity 
“  Lecture  Sermons  twice.” 


“  Tractatio  Scripturae  aprimis  saeculis  Novi  Testamenti  ad  hcdiemum 
usque  diem  diversas  Iiabuit  aetates.  Prima  possit  did  nativa  ;  secunda 
moralis  ;  tertia,  anda;  quarta,  rediviva  ;  quinta,  polemica ,  dogmatica , 
topica  ;  sexta ,  critica,  polyglotta ,  antiquaria ,  homiletica.  Adbuc  igitui 
non  ea  Scripturae  viguit  experientia  et  intelligentia  in  Ecclesia,  quae  in 
ipsa  Scriptura  offertur.  Evincunt  hoc  opinionum  luxuriantes  dis- 
crepantiae  et  caligantes  in  prophetis  oculi  nostri.  Plus  ultra  yocamur 
ad  earn  in  Scripturis  facultatem  quae  est  virilis  et  regalis,  perfectionique 
Scripturae  satis  prope  respondeat.  Sed  per  adversa  excoquendi  erunt 
homines  prius.  Earum  aetatum  historia  et  descriptio  justum  atque 
utilem  tractatum  daret.” — Bengel,  Praefatio  Gnomonis,  §  v. 


u  Ye  search  the  Scriptures,  because  ye  think  that  in  them  ye  have 
eternal  life  ;  and  these  are  they  which  bear  witness  of  Me  ;  and  ye  will 
not  come  to  Me  that  ye  may  have  life.” — John  v.  39,  40. 


5 


B 


\ 


I 


j 


✓ 


i 


V. 


V 


HISTORY  OF  INTERPRETATION. 


LECTURE  I. 


SUCCESS  AND  FAILURE  OF  EXEGESIS. 


“  Break  up  your  fallow  ground,  and 


sow  not  among  thorns.”  3— Jer.  iv.  3. 


„  IS  n0t  °ne  of  the  sacred  books  which  have  been  called 

the  Bibles  of  Humanity  ”  which  has  not  in  the  lapse  of 

years  become  the  subject  of  endless  comment  and  explana¬ 
tion  As  centuries  advance,  there  is  an  inevitable  change  in 
modes  of  thought  and  forms  of  expression.  Words”  and 
phrases  become  obsolete  or  acquire  a  wholly  new  connotation. 
The  writings  which  nations  accept  as  their  chief  guide  in 
matters  of  religion  derive  their  authority  partly  from  the 
ascendency  of  master  minds,  partly  from  their  own  intrinsic 
depth,  force,  or  beauty.  Books  which  have  once  been  ac¬ 
knowledged  as  sacred,  become  the  centres  of  thousands  of 
mllowed  associations,  and  the  reverence  in  which  they  are 
held  grows  deeper  as  age  after  age  passes  by.  But  the  words 
of  one  age  and  nation  can  never  be  the  exact  and  complete 
expression  of  the  thoughts  of  another,  and  for  books  immor¬ 
talised  by  the  accumulated  reverence  of  generations,  Exegesis 
becomes  a  matter  of  necessity.  It,  is  required  for  the”  ex¬ 
planation  of  a  significance  which  time  has  obscured,  and  for 
the  co-ordination  of  ancient  thoughts  with  the  discoveries, 
the  experiences,  the  philosophical  inquiries  of  later  periods’ 


Lit.  Fallow  for  you  a  fallow  ground  ” 
tomp.  Hos.  x.  12  •  Matt.  xiii.  7. 


LXX. 


vzdocrare 


eavrois  vewfxaTa. 


4 


Qualification  of  the  Excgete. 

The  Bible  furnishes  no  exception  to  this  universal  law ; 
but  it  stands  alone  among  sacred  books  in  that  it  is 
avowedly  the  record  of  a  progressive  revelation,  of  a  revela¬ 
tion  not  homogeneous  throughout  in  value  and  import¬ 
ance,  but  given  fragmentarily  and  multifariously  in  many 
portions  and  many  ways.1  Holy  men  of  old  spake  as  they 
were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  their  language  was 
subject  to  all  the  ordinary  conditions  and  limitations  of  human 
speech.  To  quote  the  profound  maxim  of  Babbi  Ishmael, 
which  was  so  often  on  the  lips  of  Maimonides,  the  Law  speaks 
in  the  tongue  of  the  sons  of  men .2  Hence  the  one  aim  of  the 
interpreter  should  be  to  ascertain  the  specific  meaning  of  the 
inspired  teacher,  and  to  clothe  it  in  the  forms  which  will  best 
convey  that  meaning  to  the  minds  of  his  contemporaries.3 
The  task  is  far  from  easy.  It  may  try  the  strength  of  hosts  of 
labourers,  and  it  requires  a  lifelong  devotion  to  many  branches 
of  criticism,  literature,  archaeology,  language,  and  history. 
But  more  is  required  than  even  this  inexhaustible  capacity 
for  labour.  The  perfect  Expositor  needs  further  to  be  en¬ 
dowed  with  a  genius  cognate  with  that  of  the  sacred  writer.4 
He  must  above  all  be  a  man  of  dauntless  independence  and 
perfect  candour.  In  the  course  of  our  inquiry  we  shall  see 
again  and  again  that  even  a  translator  has  need  of  invincible 
honesty  if  he  would  avoid  the  misleading  influences  of  his  own 

1  7 ToXvfxep&s  Ka\  TroAvTpoTrcos.  Heb.  i.  1. 

2  DIN  *02  jlB^D  min  man.  See  Hirschfeld,  Halachische  Excgese, 
p.  142  ;  Derenbourg,  Palestine,  p.  392. 

“  The  myths  and  parables  of  the  primal  years, 

Whose  letter  kills,  by  Thee  interpreted, 

Take  healthful  meanings  fitted  to  our  needs  ; 

And  in  the  souVs  vernacular  express 

The  common  law  of  simple  righteousness.” — Whittier. 

3  Aug.  Be  Doctr.  Christ,  i.  1.  “  Duae  res  quibus  nititur  omnis  tractatio 

Scripturae,  modus  inveniendi  quae  intelligenda  sunt,  et  modus  proferendi  quae 
intclle eta  sunt.”  Ernesti,  Inst.  Interpr.  “  Est  inter pretatio  facultas  docendi 
quae  cujusque  orationi  subjecta  sit ,  seu  efficiendi  ut  alter  cogitet  eadem  cum 
scriptore  quoque.” 

4  “  Willst  den  Dichter  Du  verstehen  ? 

Musst  in  Dichter’s  Lande  gehen.” — Goethe. 

“Intelligere  scriptorem  is  dicendus  est  qui  idem  quod  ille  dum  scribebat 
cogitavit,  legens  cogitat.” — Kuenen,  Critica  Lineamenta. 


5 


The  Authority  of  Scripture. 

a  priori  convictions.  The  legend  which  tells  us  how  Luther 
hurled  his  inkstand  at  the  Spirit  of  Evil  in  his  Patmos 
at  the  Wartburg  indicates  the  fierce  temptations  which  the 
faith  of  the  Interpreter  must  be  strong  enough  to  resist. 
But  it  would  seem  to  require  a  greatness  more  than 
human  to  attain  to  the  full  measure  of  this  absolute 
honesty.  Not  only  in  the  Septuagint  and  in  the  Vulgate,  but 
even  in  Luther’s  version,  and  in  the  English  Bible,  there  are 
admitted  errors  which  indicate  the  theological  bias  of  the 
translators  and  not  the  unmodified  thoughts  of  the  sacred 
text.  Few  are  the  translators,  fewer  stdl  the  Exegetes,  who 
have  been  so  free  from  various  idols  of  the  cave,  the  forum,  and 
the  theatre  as  to  abstain  from  finding  in  the  Bible  thoughts 
which  it  does  not  contain,  and  rejecting  or  unjustly  modifying 
the  thoughts  which  indeed  are  there. 

The  founder  of  the  Bampton  Lectures  placed  “  the  divine 
authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures”  in  the  forefront  of  the 
truths  on  which  he  wished  these  sermons  to  be  preached. 
To  maintain  that  authority  will  be  my  one  object  in  the 
large  and  difficult  task  which  I  have  undertaken.  Of  late 
years  the  Bible  has  been  assailed  by  many  critics,  and 
we  may  fear  that  the  minds  of  thousands  have  been  dis¬ 
quieted.  It  is  but  too  probable  that  such  assaults  will  in¬ 
crease  in  number  and  in  violence.  The  Voice  that  once 
shook  the  earth  “  hath  promised,  saying,  Yet  once  more  will  I 
make  to  tremble  not  the  earth  only,  but  also  the  heaven. 
And  this  word,  ‘  Yet  once  more/  signifieth  the  removing  of 
those  things  that  are  shaken,  as  of  things  that  have 
been  made,  that  those  things  which  are  not  shaken  may 
remain.”1 2  Many  beliefs  have  been  shaken  to  the  verv 

t- 

dust  which  were  once  erroneously  deemed  essential  to  the 

1  Of  the.  LXX.  I  shall  speak  infra.  The  most  striking  instance  of  sup¬ 
posed  bias  in  Luther’s  version  is  in  Rom.  iii.  28  (“vox  ‘sola’  tot  clamoribus 
lapidata  ),  but  “alone  had  appeared  in  the  Genoese  Bible  (1476),  and  the 
Nuremberg  Bible  (1483).  Bor  the  English  version,  see  among  other  passages, 
l  .Sam.  iii.  15  ;  2  Sam.  viii.  18  ;  Acts  ii.  47  ;  1  Cor.  xi.  27  ;  Gal.  i.  18  ;  Heb. 
vi.  6  ;  x.  38,  although  there  is  not  in  any  single  passage  any  intentional 
malafides. 

2  Ileb.  xii.  25,  26. 


6 


Sincerity  Essential, 

maintenance  of  our  belief  in  Scripture.  With  the  defence  of 
these  debris ,  with  the  reconstruction  of  these  ruins,  we  are 
not  concerned.  They  were  but  untenable  additions,  fantastic 
human  superstructures,  weak  outworks,  unauthorised  priestly 
chambers,  the  clustering  cells  of  idols  innumerable,  which  had 
been  built  round  the  inviolable  shrine.  They  were  the  ad¬ 
ditions  made  thereto,  sometimes  by  usurping  self-interest, 
sometimes  by  ignorant  superstition.  They  did  but  weaken 
the  building,  and  deform  the  original  design.  They  have 
crumbled  under  the  hands  of  time,  or  have  been  demolished 
by  hostile  forces,  often  amid  the  anathemas  of  those  who 
erected  them.  But  as  they  have  been  swept  away  we  have 
seen  more  clearly  the  beauty  of  the  Temple,  bright  with 
the  Glory  of  the  Presence,  built  after  the  pattern  given  in 
the  Mount. 

If  the  Scriptures  be  holy  and  of  divine  authority,  no 
deadlier  disservice  can  be  inflicted  on  them  than  the  casuistical 
defence  of  conventional  apology.  On  the  altar  of  Truth  I 
will  offer  no  such  strange  fire,  I  will  burn  no  such  unhallowed 
incense.  The  Bible  would  have  no  claim  to  sacredness 
if  it  needed  any  apology  beyond  the  simplest  statement 
of  plain  facts.  Even  vvh^n  the  Ark  seems  to  totter  it  is 
more  really  profaned  by  the  Uzzah- hands  of  officious  reve¬ 
rence  than  by  the  rudeness  of  the  Philistines  themselves.  The 
divine  authority  which  I  would  maintain  is  that  of  Scripture 
in  its  simple  meaning,  in  its  native  majesty;  of  Scripture 
as  the  manifold  record  of  a  progressive  revelation.  The 
Bible  forms  an  organic  whole,  but  it  is  composed  of  many 
parts  of  unequal  value.  It  consists  of  no  less  than  sixty- 
six  books  in  different  languages,  in  different  styles,  of 
different  ages.1  It  is  not  a  book  but  a  library.  It  contains 
the  fragments  of  a  national  literature,  and  the  fragments  only. 
Many  books  which  have  now  perished  are  quoted  in  its  pages. 
No  less  than  ten  such  works — by  Nathan,  Shemaiah,  Gad, 

1  The  word  Bible  represents  not  rb  &if}\iov  but  ra  /3i@Ata,  a  term  which 
began  to  be  used  in  the  fifth  century.  The  Scriptures  were  also  called  Biblio¬ 
theca.  Jer.  Bp.  6  ;  Durandus,  Bational.  i.  27  ;  Du  Cange,  s.v. 


Manifoldness  of  Scripture.  7 

Iddo,  Ahijah,  Hosai,  Jehu  son  of  Hanani,  Isaiah,  and  others 
who  are  unnamed— are  referred  to  in  the  Books  of  Chronicles 
alone.  It  was  written  by  kings  and  peasants,  by  priests  and 
prophets,  by  warriors  and  husbandmen,  by  Jews,  by  Christians, 
and  in  parts  even  by  Gentiles ;  by  poets  and  chroniclers ;  by 
passionate  enthusiasts  and  calm  reasoners ;  by  unlearned 
fishermen  and  Alexandrian  students;  by  exclusive  patriots 
and  libeial  humanitarians ;  by  philosophers  who  knew  from 
reasoning,  and  mystics  who  saw  by  intuition,  and  practical 
men  who  had  learnt  by  experience  the  lessons  which  they 
recognised  to  be  eternal  and  divine.  He  who  would  truly 
reverence  Scripture  must  reverence  it  as  it  is.  He  must 
judge  of  it  m  its  totality,  and  by  its  actual  phenomena.  Its 
authority  is  derived  from  its  final  and  genuine  teaching. 
If  our  faith  in  it  be  strong  and  living  we  must  estimate 
it,  book  by  book,  and  utterance  after  utterance,  by  its 
own  claims,  and  by  the  manner  in  which  it  justifies  them, 
without  the  invention  of  mechanical  theories,  or  the  adop¬ 
tion  of  arbitrary  interpretations.  We  shall  not,  indeed,  for 
one  moment,  deny  to  Scripture  that  prerogative  of  all  inspired 
language  by  which  its  meaning  is  not  always  exhausted  by 
a  single  aspect  of  truth.  Where  it  is  dealing  with  spiritual 
facts  or  expressing  unfathomable  mysteries,  the  letter  of  it 
should  be  to  us  as  the  Urim  of  Aaron,  while  the  revealing 
light  of  the  Spirit  within  us  steals  over  the  oracular  gems. 
Simplicity  of  interpretation  does  not  exclude  the  many-sided¬ 
ness  of  truth  which  suggested  to  St.  Paul  the  epithet  “  richly 
variegated/’ 1  and  which  made  Erigena  compare  the  meanings 
of  Scripture  to  the  glancing  hues  on  a  peacock’s  feather.2 
But  the  revelation  of  God’s  words  giveth  understanding 
to  the  simple.”3  The  humblest  Christian  may  claim  his 
share  in  the  illumination  promised  to  all  God’s  children,  and 


Eur.^  r!  mo  4  7roAu7rotWos  "°+t*  Tod  0eo?-  VnJg.  Multiformis,  corap. 

enim  multiplex  et  infinitus  divinorum  eloqui- 

ou  1  i  Siquidem  m  penny  pavonis  una  eademque  mirabilw  ac 

Jius.W.  T  T  nera  jl  UUU  colo™m  wmetas  conspicitur  in  uno  eodemque  loco 
ejusdem  pennae  portiunculae.  3  ps>  rYjY  13q  1 


S  Danger  of  Idolism. 

may  therefore  refuse  to  resign  into  the  hands  of  usurpers, 
however  venerable,  the  indefeasible  rights  of  the  human 
Reason  and  the  indefeasible  duty  of  the  human  Conscience. 
He  must  not  confuse  revealed  facts  with  theological  notions. 
He  must  not  permit  long-tolerated  errors  to  put  on  the  air  ol 
abstract  truths.  He  will  interpret  language  by  the  only  laws 
whereby  it  can  be  judged.  He  will  sweep  aside  all  arbitral y 
glosses  of  which  he  can  trace  the  genesis  and  divine  the  object. 
He  will  do  this  all  the  more  in  proportion  to  his  convic¬ 
tion  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  contain  the  Word  of  God, 
which  it  is  of  infinite  importance  that  he  should  not  confuse 
with  the  teaching  of  ignorant  and  imperfect  men.  When 
Alexander  was  besieging  Tyre,  the  worshippers  of  Apollo 
chained  their  idol-palladium  with  golden  fetters  to  the  altar 
of  Melkarth,  because  they  feared  that  he  was  about  to  abandon 
their  city.2  If  they  had  been  capable  of  truly  honouring  him 
they  would  have  known  that  the  Divine  is  of  its  very  nature 
free.  Scripture  must  neither  be  made  into  such  an  idol, 
nor  treated  with  such  misgiving.  It  will  need  no  defence  if 
it  be  left  to  the  power  of  its  inherent  greatness ;  it  will  be 
overthrown  or  taken  captive  if  it  be  trammelled  by  the 
vain  theories  of  idolatrous  worshippers. 

I.  The  task  before  us  is~in  some  respects  a  melancholy 
one.  We  shall  pass  in  swift  review  many  centuries  of' 
exegesis,  and  shall  be  compelled  to  see  that  they  .  were, 
in  the  main,  centuries  during  which  the  interpretation  of 
Scripture  has  been  dominated  by  unproven  theories,  and 
overladen  by  untenable  results.  We  shall  see  that  these 
theories  have  often  been  affiliated  to  each  other,  and  aug- 

1  “This  presumptuous  imposing  of  the  senses  of  men  upon  the  words  of 
God,  the  special  senses  of  men  upon  the  general  words  of  God  ;  this  denying 
our  own  opinions  and  tyrannous  enforcing  them  upon  others  ;  this  restrain¬ 
ing  of  the  Word  of  God  from  that  latitude  and  generality,  and  the  under¬ 
standings  of  men  from  that  liberty  in  which  Christ  and  the  Apostles  left 
them,  is,  and  hath  been,  the  only  fountain  of  all  the  schisms  and  that  which 
maketh  them  immortal.  .  .  .  Let  those  leave  claiming  Infallibility  that 
have  no  title  to  it,  and  let  them  that  in  their  words  disclaim  it,  disclaim  it 
also  in  their  actions.” — Chillingworth,  Bel.  of  Protestants,  iv.  16. 

2  gee  q#  Curtius,  iv.  14  ;  Diod.  Sic.  xvii.  41.  “  Hinc  Tyrn,  superstitionc 

induct!,  catenis  aureis  simulacrum  Apollinis  in  basi  devinxere,  linpedituri, 
ut  persuasum  liabebant,  Dei  ex  urbe  migrationem. 


0 


Tests  of  Exegesis. 

mented  at  each  stage  by  the  superaddition  of  fresh  theories 
no  less  mistaken.  Exegesis  has  often  darkened  the  time 
meaning  of  Scripture,  not  evolved  or  elucidated  it  This  is 
no  mere  assertion.  If  we  test  its  truth  by  the  Darwinian 
principle  of  « the  survival  of  the  fittest,”  we  shall  see  that,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  the  vast  mass  of  what  has  passed  for  Scrip¬ 
tural  interpretation  is  no  longer  deemed  tenable,  and  has  now 
been  condemned  and  rejected  by  the  wider  knowledge  and 
deeper  insight  of  mankind.  If  we  judge  of  it  by  the  Hegelian 
principle  that  History  is  the  objective  development  of  the  Idea 1 
and  that  mankind  is  perfectible  by  passing  through  certain 
phases  of  thought,  which  are  in  themselves  only  moments  of 
transition,  then  we  shall  see  that  past  methods  of  interpreta¬ 
tion  were  erroneous,  and  how  they  originated,  and  why  they 
were  erroneous,  because  the  course  of  History  has  stripped 
off  the  accidents  which  pertained  to  the  enunciation  of  truth 
and  given  us  a  nearer  insight  into  the  truth  itself.  And  to’ 
the  limited  application  of  such  a  method  to  the  phenomena 
o  exegesis  we  are  invited  by  the  phenomena  of  Scripture 
itsel .  It  was  an  ever-advancing  revelation.  The  gradual 
deve  opment  of  the  canon  of  interpretation  is  just  what  we 
should  have  expected  from  the  gradually  developed  conditions 
under  which  the  revelation  is  presented  to  us.  We  make 
use  of  relative  truth  as  a  means  of  getting  ever  nearer  to 
le  absoiute.  But,  without  any  appeal  either  to  Science 
or  Philosophy,  we  may  simply  point  to  the  fact  which  will 
become  clear  in  the  course  of  these  Lectures,  that  the 
u  ler  acquaintance  with  the  original  languages,  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  criticism,  the  profounder  study  of  History,  Psycho¬ 
logy,  Archaeology,  and  comparative  Religion,  have  resulted  in 
the  indefinite  limitation,  if  not  the  complete  abandonment 
of  principles  which  prevailed  for  many  hundreds  of  years  in 
the  exegesis  of  Scripture,  and  in  the  consignment  to  oblivion 
—lor  every  purpose  except  that  of  curiosity— of  the  special 


a  significant  and  beautiful  fact  that  the  Hebre 
Sophete  °f  J°ShUa’  JudSeS’  «id  Ki 


canon  places 
among  the 


10 


The  Lesson  of  History. 

meanings  assigned  by  these  methods  to  book  after  book 
and  verse  after  verse  of  the  sacred  writings. 

If  this  be  the  lesson  of  History,  as  I  believe  it  is,  then  to 
reject  it  is  to  reject  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
of  God.  For  secular  History  too  is  a  revelation.  It  is,  as 
Yico  called  it,  “  a  civil  Theology  of  Divine  Providence.”  To 
refuse  the  plain  teaching  of  advancing  experience  may  be  a 
more  essential  blasphemy  than  to  reject  humanly-invented 
theories  of  Inspiration,  or  methods  of  explaining  Scripture 

_ whether  Rabbinic,  Alexandrian,  Patristic,  Scholastic,  or 

Deformed. 

Take  by  way  of  instance  the  entire  Talmud.  It  includes 
the  discussions,  thoughts,  inferences  of  well-nigh  a  thousand 
years,  and  it  makes  every  verse  and  letter  of  Scripture  “  a 
golden  nail  on  which  to  hang  its  gorgeous  tapestries.”  But 
it  may  be  said,  without  fear  of  refutation,  that,  apart  from 
a  few  moral  applications  and  ritual  inferences  in  matters 
absolutely  unimportant,  for  every  one  text  on  which  it  throws 
the  smallest  glimmer  of  light,  there  are  hundreds  which  it 
inexcusably  perverts  and  misapplies.1  The  remark  applies 
with  scarcely  less  force  to  the  comments  of  the  Schoolmen. 
In  these  too  we  find  the  same  intensity  of  investigation,  the 
same  futility  of  result.  They  idolised  the  outward  Book,  but 
giving  themselves  up  to  vain  fancies  and  superstitious  theories, 
did  not  penetrate  to  the  inmost  life.2  If  men  have  built  good 
materials  on  the  foundation  of  Scripture,  they  have  also  built 
masses  of  wood,  hay,  stubble,  of  which  no  small  portion  has 
been  reduced  to  ashes  by  the  consuming  test  of  Truth.  But 
while  this  fire  has  burned  up  the  scaffoldings  with  which  they 
have  concealed  and  injured  the  Temple,  the  inner  Shrine 
lias  been  protected  by  its  own  Shekinah,  and  the  probatory 

1  The  only  excuse  that  can  be  made  for  the  Talmudists  is  that  their  quotations 
were  often  avowedly  allusive  rather  than  exegetieal.  Hence  the  old  rule 
“□“6  “IDT  “linp  rUKD  j'N  DK,  which  Wogue  renders,  “Si  (cet  passage) 
ne  prouve  pas  la  chose  il  peut  servir  du  moins  a  la  rappeler."  Hist,  de  la 
Bible,  p.  168.  See  Yoma,  f.  83,  2  ;  Yebamoth,  f.  64,  1,  quoted  by  Mr.  Hershon, 
Genesis ,  pp.  131,  293. 

2  See  John  v.  36-40,  with  the  remarkable  comment  of  Canon  "West- 
cott. 


Causes  of  Aberration.  \  { 

flames  have  not  melted  its  gold  and  silver,  or  scathed  so 
much  as  one  of  its  precious  stones. 

We  may  at  once  note  two  reasons  why  exegesis  tends  to 
become  non-natural. 

The  one  is  the  growth  of  religious  practices  and  rites  of 
worship  which  have  their  root  in  conceptions  of  life  un- 
nown  to  the  sacred  books.  Pharisaism,  for  instance,  in  the 
days  of  the  Second  Temple  was  guided  by  a  number  of 
counsels  of  perfection,”  i  which  had  partly  arisen  from  contact 
with  thoughts  outside  the  range  of  Judaism,  and  were  partly 
due  to  custom  and  the  Oral  Law.  In  their  arguments  with 
the  kadducees  it  was  useless  for  “  the  Chasidim  ” 2  to  appeal 
to  the  Oral  Law  which  their  opponents  rejected.  They  thus 
6  themselves  compelled  so  to  explain  the  Written  Law  as  to 
extort  from  it  the  sanctions  which  it  did  not  really  contain. 

The  other  misleading  tendency  is  the  growth  of  religious 
opinions  which  are  developed  by  the  natural  progress  of  the 
intellect  or  by  intercourse  with  other  nations.  The  Jews 
learnt  much  from  their  contact  with  Chaldaeans,  Persians 
Greeks,  Egyptians,  Romans.  But  they  did  not  understand 
that  God  was  also  the  God  and  Father  of  the  Gentiles,  and 
being  misled  by  a  priori  theories,  they  would  not  believe  that 
views  which  they  embraced  with  enthusiasm  were  not  con¬ 
tained,  at  least  implicitly,  in  their  own  sacred  books.3 

It  is  to  the  union  of  these  causes  that  we  owe  a  large  part 
of  the  Rabbinic  and  Alexandrian  exegesis.  It  was  an  exe¬ 
gesis  ad  hoc ,  rendered  necessary  in  Palestine  by  Pharisaism 
in  Alexandria  by  enthusiasm  for  Greek  Philosophy. 

The  Christian  expositors  inherited  the  fatal  legacy  of 
ale  st  mi  an .  and  Alexandrian  methods.  There  is  hardly  an 
error  m  their  pages  which  cannot  be  traced  back  in  principle 
to  the  Rabbis  or  to  Philo.  But  besides  this  they  were  them- 


*  whic?  seven  are  attributed  to  Ezra.  See  on  the  subject,  Wogue 

Hist,  de  Bible,  p.  170.  °  ’ 

1  'Tm  0f  the  vfty  which  developed  into  Pharisaism. 

P  S  &  Wfti.  ”T-  *•  The  W°rd  “ reudered  ”  in 

AbotlfV'of 'S  S  nd’  dulB  tde  ^aw  avfal'n  and  again ,  for  everything  is  in  it.” 


12 


Seven  Main  Periods. 


selves  swayed  by  analogous  influences.  The  doctrines  of 
monastic  asceticism  and  the  claims  of  the  mediaeval  Papacy, 
as  well  as  various  Aristotelian  and  Platonic  views  among  the 
Schoolmen,  were  as  remote  as  possible  from  anything  which 
could  be  found  in  Scripture ;  yet  they  had  to  be  tortured 
out  of  the  sacred  page.  The  process  is  constantly  going 
on.  To  this  day  men  of  all  schools  unconsciously  deceive 
themselves  and  others  by  a  liberal  adoption  of  the  words  of 
Scripture  in  meanings  inconceivably  remote  from  those  which 
they  really  imply.  But  the  practice,  whether  resorted  to  by 
the  orthodox  or  the  unorthodox,  is  in  reality  a  violation  of  the 
majesty  of  Scripture — an  intrusion  of  the  subjective  into  the 
sphere  of  revelation.1 

II.  There  are  seven  main  periods  and  systems  of  Biblical 
interpretation.  The  Rabbinic,  lasting,  roughly  speaking,  for 
1000  years,  from  the  days  of  Ezra  (b.c.  457)  to  those  of  Bab 
Abina  (f  A.D.  498) ; 2  the  Alexandrian ,  which  flourished  from 
the  epoch  of  Aristobulus  (b.c.  180)  to  the  death  of  Philo, 
and  which  was  practically  continued  in  the  Christian  Schools 
of  Alexandria,  from  Pantaenus  (a.d.  200)  down  to  Pierius ; 
the  Patristic,  which  in  various  channels  prevailed  from  the 
days  of  Clement  of  Borne  (a.d.  95)  through  the  Dark  Ages 
to  the  Glossci  Interlineciris  of  Anselm  of  Laon  (j*  1117);  the 
Scholastic,  from  the  days  of  ATelard  (f  1142)  to  the  Beforma- 
tion ;  the  exegesis  of  the  Reformation  Era  in  the  sixteenth 
century  ;  the  Post-Reformation  exegesis  which  continued  to 
the  middle  of  the  eighteenth ;  and  lastly  the  Modern  Epoch, 
which  seemed  for  a  time  to  culminate  in  widespread  atheism, 
but  after  a  period  of  “  dispersive  analysis  ”  has  ended  in 
establishing  more  securely,  not  indeed  the  fictitious  theories 
of  a  mechanical  inspiration,  but  the  true  sacredness  and 
eternal  significance  of  Holy  Writ. 

1  Among  the  Jews  this  misinterpretation  was  elevated  into  a  sacred  prin¬ 
ciple.  They  quoted  Ps.  cxix.  26,  and  explained  it  to  mean,  “  If  it  is  opportune 
to  act  for  Jehovah,  one  may  violate  the  Law.”  Berakhoth,  ad  fin.  ;  Gittin, 
f.  60.  The  rule  admits  of  a  true  though  very  limited  application  (Matt.  xii. 
4),  but  is  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  Inspiration  dogmas  of  the  llabbis 
and  of  Protestant  scholasticism. 

2  Itab  Abina  was  the  last  of  the  Amoraim,  and  completed  the  Babylonian 
Gemant  at  Sora,  a.d.  498. 


False  Methods. 


13 


Of  the  methods  adopted  in  these  epochs  some  had  their 
roots  in  Judaism,  which  led  to  the  worst  developments  of  a 
fantastic  letter  worship  ;  others  in  a  Pagan  gnosticism,  which 
revelled  in  the  extravagances  of  allegorical  perversion ;  others 
again  in  the  one-sided  abuse  of  principles  in  themselves 
admissible.  In  the  Patristic  and  Scholastic  epochs  respect 
for  a  supposed  tradition  was  made  the  basis  for  ecclesiastical 
usurpation,  and  the  symbolism  of  parts  of  Scripture  served  as 
a  pretext  for  spiritualising  the  whole.  In  the  Post-Reforma¬ 
tion  epoch  the  misapplied  expression  “analogy  of  faith"  was 
used  as  an  engine  of  slavery  to  Confessions  and  Articles. 
Happily,  however,  in  the  Providence  of  God,  the  knowledge 
of  Sciipture  was  advanced  not  only  in  spite  of  these  aberra¬ 
tions  but  even  by  means  of  them.  The  disputes  with  heretics 
m  the  first  four  centuries  secured  the  authority  of  a  pure 
canon.  The  attention  paid  to  separate  phrases  led  to  textual 
criticism.  The  arbitrariness  of  allegory  served  to  establish 
the  importance  of  the  historic  sense.  The  tyranny  of 
hierarchic  tradition  necessitated  the  Reformation.  The  half- 
1  agan  Renaissance  brought  in  its  train  the  thorough  mastery 
of  the  original  languages.  The  unprogressive  deadness  of 
1  lotestant  Scholasticism  ended  in  the  overthrow  of  an  un¬ 
natural  hypothesis  of  verbal  dictation.  And  when  the  reaction 
had  gone  too  far— when  nothing  was  left  but  a  cold  and  un¬ 
spiritual  rationalism  to  meet  the  unbelief  caused  by  idealising 
philosophies  there  occurred  the  great  revivals  of  deep  faith 

and  spiritual  feeling,  of  Christian  philanthropy  and  evangelic 
truth.1 

And  thus  it  has  come  to  pass  that  after  the  errors  no  less 
than  after  the  assaults  of  so  many  hundred  years,  surviv¬ 
ing  the  misrepresentations  of  its  enemies,  and  the  more 
dangerous  perversions  of  its  friends,  the  Bible  still  maintains 
its  unique  power  and  grandeur ;  is  still  the  sole  Book  for  all 
the  world ;  is  still  profitable  beyond  all  other  books  for 
doctiine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in 
righteousness ;  is  still  found  worthy  to  be  called  a  Book  of 

Soe  Lange,  Gh^undriss  d.  bibl.  Hervi.  xxi.-xxiv. 


14 


Objects  of  the  Survey. 


God,  written  for  our  learning  that  we  through  endurance  and 
through  comfort  of  the  Scriptures  might  have  our  hope.  Its 
lessons  are  interwoven  with  all  that  is  noblest  in  the  life  of 
nations :  “  the  sun  never  sets  upon  its  gleaming  page.” 
“  What  a  Book  !  ”  exclaimed  the  brilliant  and  sceptical  Heine, 
after  a  day  spent  in  the  unwonted  task  of  reading  it.  “  Vast 
and  wide  as  the  world,  rooted  in  the  abysses  of  creation,  and 
towering  up  beyond  the  blue  secrets  of  Heaven.  Sunrise  and 
sunset,  promise  and  fulfilment,  life  and  death,  the  whole 
drama  of  Humanity,  are  all  in  this  Book  !”  “  Its  light  is 

like  the  body  of  the  Heavens  in  its  clearness ;  its  vastness 
like  the  bosom  of  the  sea ;  its  variety  like  scenes  of  nature.” 1 

It  will  not,  I  trust,  be  supposed,  that  the  object  of  this 
survey  of  the  History  of  Interpretation  is  nothing  but  the 
sterile  and  self- glorifying  contemplation  of  abandoned  errors. 
“Do  we  condemn  the  ancients?  ”  asks  St.  Jerome.  “  By  no 
means ;  but  after  the  studies  of  our  predecessors  we  toil  to 
the  best  of  our  power  in  the  House  of  the  Lord.”  2  We 
study  the  past  not  to  denounce  it,  not  to  set  ourselves 
above  it,  not  to  dissever  ourselves  from  its  continuity,  but  to 
learn  from  it,  and  to  avoid  its  failures.  It  has  much  to  teach 
us  by  way  of  precious  instruction,  as  well  as  by  way  of 
solemn  warning.  If  we  shall  have  to  dwell  upon  its 
mistakes  it  is  only  that  we  may  have  grace  to  avoid  them, 
and  to  be  on  our  guard  against  similar  tendencies.  For  error 
strikes  deep  into  the  human  mind.  It  has  never  been  easy 
to  pluck  it  forth  by  the  roots.  Unless  we  constantly  break  up 
our  fallow  ground,  the  scattered  seeds  and  fibres  of  bitterness 
will  germinate  again  and  again  in  the  teeming  soil. 

And  though  we  shall  be  compelled  to  notice  the  many 
aberrations  of  exegetical  theology,  we  shall  also  see  that 
scarcely  in  any  age  has  it  been  absolutely  fruitless.  So  far 
as  Homiletics  may  be  allowed  to  play  a  part,  however  humble, 
in  the  region  of  Interpretation,  every  age  has  added  something 
to  the  knowledge  of  Scripture,  because  every  age  has  added 

1  I)r.  Newman,  Tracts  for  the  Times,  No.  87. 

2  Jer.  Apol.  in  linfin.  ii.  25. 


15 


Simplicity  of  Necessary  Truths. 

something  to  its  profitable  and  moral  application.  In  one  sense, 

and  that  a  most  important  one,  it  may  be  said  of  Scripture  as 
of  Nature  that— 

There  is  a  book  who  runs  may  read, 
hich  heavenly  truth  imparts  ; 

And  all  the  lore  its  scholars  need 
Pure  eyes  and  Christian  hearts.” 

In  much  that  belongs  to  the  region  of  theology,  in  almost 
every  question  which  pertains  to  history,  literature,  and  the 
real  significance  of  language,  the  holiest  may  go  astray  from 
inevitable  ignorance;  but  never  has  there  been  a  period  in 
which  the  Bible,  or  such  part  of  it  as  has  been  suffered  to 
er  its  way  to  the  multitude  between  the  inclosing  rocks  of 
authority  or  through  the  choking  sands  of  tradition,  has  not 
been  a  well-spring  of  salvation.  Its  most  primary,  its  most 
essential  truths,  which  are  so  few  and  simple  that  they  might 

be  written  upon  the  palm  of  the  hand,  have  always  been 
sufficient  for  the  saving  of  the  soul. 

Nor  is  it  only  the  few  ultimate  and  essential  truths  of 
scripture  which  the  mists  of  interpretation  have  been  unable 
wholly  to  obscure.  Devious  as  has  been  the  path  of  exegesis 
it  has  gathered  multitudes  of  treasures  in  the  course  of  its 
Wan  61  “os-  There  is  scarcely  a  sincere  commentary,  scarcely 
even  a  compilation  written  in  any  period,  from  which  some- 
mg  may  not  be  learnt.  Each  age,  however  mistaken  in  its 
hermeneutic  conceptions,  has  contributed  some  element  of 
e  ucidation,  some  fragment  of  knowledge,  some  flash  of  insight, 
lie  age  of  the  Rabbis  lost  itself  in  worthless  trivialities,  and 
suffocated  the  warmth  and  light  of  Scripture  under  the  white 
ashes  of  ceremonial  discussion,  yet  in  preserving  the  text  of  the 
d  testament  it  rendered  services  of  inestimable  value  The 
age  of  the  Fathers,  though  its  exegesis  was  ruined  by  the 
1  cense  of  allegory,  yet  in  the  works  of  Origen,  Theodore  of 
i-uopsuestia,  Jerome,  and  Augustine,  produced  commentaries 
which  will  never  lose  their  importance.  The  age  of  the 
Schoolmen,  amid  its  masses  of  unprofitable  subtlety  and 
endless  systematisation,  left  its  legacy  of  exhaustive  and 
philosophic  thought.  The  age  of  the  Reformation  revived 


16  The  Power  of  Scripture. 

the  studies  which  alone  render  possible  a  sound  interpieta- 
tion,  and  shook  itself  free— if  not  completely  yet  to  a  great 
extent — from  the  errors  of  tradition,  and  the  trammels  of 
bondage.  The  Post-Reformation  exegesis  retrograded  into  a 
new  form  of  that  scholastic  despotism,  which  seems  congenial 
to  the  servile  intellect  of  the  majority;  yet  it  emiched 
the  treasures  of  an  immense  erudition,  and  struck  out  new 
and  fruitful  principles  of  illustration  and  research.  And 
though  in  modern  times  Biblical  interpretation  has  often 
been  too  weak  and  too  biassed  to  defeat  the  powerful 
attacks  of  enemies,  yet  the  Church  of  God  has  learnt 
many  a  valuable — many  an  absolutely  needful  lesson  even 
from  those  who  would  fain  have  destroyed  for  ever  the 
authority  of  her  sacred  books.  Science  after  science  has 
been  invoked,  method  after  method  of  philosophical  inquiry 
has  been  applied,  to  dethrone  from  their  supremacy  the 
Jewish  and  Christian  Scriptures ;  yet  they  remain  supreme. 
There  never,  perhaps,  was  any  period  in  the  world’s  history 
in  which,  throughout  every  region  of  the  globe,  those  Scrip¬ 
tures  exercised  a  more  powerful  sway  over  the  minds  of  men. 
They  are  the  one  Book  which  is  found  alike  in  the  hut  of 
the  barbarian  and  the  closet  of  the  thinker ;  the  one  Book 
which  is  equally  precious  to  the  pauper  and  to  the  king.  The 
solvents  of  modern  criticism  have  but  brightened  the  truths 
which  had  been  soiled  by  the  accretion  of  ages,  and  they  who 
used  them  have  unwittingly  beautified  what  they  intended 
to  destroy.  We  may  well  take  courage  when  we  consider 
how  many  have  been  the  enemies  of  Scripture,  and  how 
impotent  has  been  their  hatred.  In  vain  did  Antiochus 
Epiphanes  rend,  profane,  and  destroy  the  Books  of  the 
Law;1  in  vain  did  Diocletian  endeavour  to  suppress  the  New 
Testament ; 2  in  vain  did  the  English  priesthood  make  it  ex- 
communication  to  read  and  heresy  to  possess  the  Bible  of 
Wiclif ;  in  vain  did  the  inquisitors  of  Philip  burn  those 
who  dared  to  study  for  themselves  the  sacred  words ; 3  in  vain 

1  1  Macc.  i.  54-57.  2  Euseb.  B.  E.  viii.  2. 

a  Motley,  Rise  of  the  Dutch  Republic,  i.  73,  228. 


Peril  of  Misinterpretation. 


17 


did  Tunstall  buy  up  and  burn  the  editions  of  Tyndale’s 
translation.1  The  keen  wit  of  the  Greek,  the  haughty  scorn 
of  the  Roman,  the  glancing  fence  of  the  sophist  have  been  in 
vam.  Celsus  and  Porphyry,  Marcion  and  Lucian,  Julian 
the  Emperor  and  Libanius  the  rhetorician,  heretics  and 
humanists,  Bolingbroke  and  Paine,  and  Voltaire,  the  French 
encyclopaedists,  the  English  deists,  the  German  philosophers 
the  keen  Neologians,  the  subtle  Materialists,  the  eloquent 
literary  men— what  have  they  effected  ?  Some  of.  them  have 
been  men  of  far  more  splendid  genius  than  all  but  a  few  of 
the  professed  defenders  of  Christianity.  No  one  would  think 
of  comparing  the  writings  of  the  early  Fathers  with  those  of 
Tacitus  or  Juvenal,  and  few  Christian  apologists  have  been 
comparable  for  intellectual  power  to  Spinoza,  or  Lessino-,  or 
Vo  taire.  And  yet,  because  it  has  been  allied  with  innocence 
and  spiritual  insight,  “  the  irresistible  might  of  weakness  has 
shaken  the  world.”  The  assailants  of  Christianity  have 
cleared  away  some  of  our  errors ;  they  have  exposed  some 
o  our  perversions;  but  they  have  not  overthrown  a  sino-le 
essential  truth.  Like  Asa  of  old,  the  Church  has  built  the 
outposts  of  Judah  out  of  the  ruined  fortresses  of  Ephraim.2 

III.  But  while  history  has  shown  that  we  have  nothing  to  fear 
for  the  sacredness  of  the  Scriptures,  it  has  taught  us  also  that 
1 11s  sacredness  has  often  been  discredited,  and  that  religion 
itself  has  been  weakened  in  the  minds  of  men,  by  the  preva¬ 
lence  of  perilous  misinterpretations.  And  how  often  has  the 
Bible  thus  been  wronged  !  It  has  been  imprisoned  in  the 
cells  of  alien  dogma ;  it  has  been  bound  hand  and  foot  in  the 
graveclothes  of  human  tradition;  it  has  been  entombed  as  in 
a  sepulchre  by  systems  of  theology,  and  the  stone  of  human 
power  has  been  rolled  up  to  close  its  door.3  But  now  the 
stone  has  been  rolled  away  from  the  door  of  the  sepulchre 
and  the  enemies  of  the  Bible  can  never  shake  its  divine 


1  See  his  monition  in  Collier,  Fed.  Rid.  iv.  61  •  ix.  84 

*  Ivioonnf  f  *  • 


Bossuet. 


r  when  it  is  not  bound 
— Bishop  Jeremy  Taylor 


C 


18 


Hermeneutic  Rules. 


authority  unless  they  be  fatally  strengthened  by  our  hypo¬ 
crisies,  our  errors,  and  our  sins. 

I  repeat,  then,  no  defence  of  that  divine  authority  can  be 
more  directly  serviceable  than  the  removal  of  the  false  methods 
of  interpretation  by  which  it  has  been  impaired.  We  can 
judge  of  those  methods,  not  only  from  the  vast  folios  in  which 
their  application  has  been  illustrated,  but  also  from  the  rules  in 
which  they  have  been  summarised.  The  rules  might  be  correct, 
and  yet  their  application  might  be  extravagant ;  but  if  the 
rules  themselves  be  valueless,  or  liable  to  the  most  facile 
misapplication,  the  systems  based  upon  them  cannot  be 
otherwise  than  erroneous  or  unsatisfactory. 

Now  it  happens  that  most  of  the  seven  epochs  which  I 
have  mentioned  have  left  us  their  rules  either  as  a  definite 
exegetic  compendium,  or  in  the  form  of  a  pregnant  principle ; — 
and  there  is  not  one  such  scheme  which  has  not  been  proved 
to  be  imperfect  or  mistaken,  by  that  light  of  God  which 
shines  on  so  steadily  and  impartially,  and  “  shows  all  things 
in  the  slow  history  of  their  ripening.” 

1.  The  Rabbinic  age  has  left  us  the  principles  of  its  exe¬ 
gesis  in  the  seven  rules  of  Hillel.1  That  great  and  estimable 
Rabbi — one  perhaps  of  the  doctors  who  as  they  sat  in  the 
temple  v/ere  astonished  by  the  understanding  and  the  answers 
of  the  youthful  Jesus — may  be  regarded  as  the  founder  of 
the  Rabbinic  system.  He  was  not  the  inventor  of  the  Oral 
Law,  and  he  added  very  little  to  the  vast  number  of  “decisions” 
(. IlalakhotK ),  which  form  the  staple  of  Jewish  tradition;  but 
he  introduced  order  and  system  into  a  chaotic  confusion,  and 
he  devised  a  method  by  which  the  results  of  tradition  could 
at  least  in  appearance,  be  deduced  from  the  data  of  the 
Written  Law.  The  gigantic  edifice  of  the  Talmud  really  rests 
on  the  hermeneutic  rules  of  Hillel  as  upon  its  most  solid 
base.2 

1  These  rules  (rVlTEi)  are  found  in  Tosefta  Sanhedrin,  c.  7,  at  the  end  of 
Sifra  ;  and  in  Aboth  of  Rabbi  Nathan,  c.  xxxvii.  See  Derenbourg,  Palestine, 
p.  187  ;  Hamburger,  Talm .  Worterb.  ii.  s.vv.  Excgese  and  Hillel  (pp.  209, 

405).  t 

2  These  rules  in  their  briefest  form  are  :  1.  “  Light  and  heavy  ”  (“iDUTl  7p), 
i.e.  a  minori  ad  majus  and  vice  versa.  2.  “Equivalence”  3.  Deduction 


HilleV s  Seven  Rules.  19 

At  first  sight  they  wear  an  aspect  of  the  most  innocent 
simplicity.  ,  The  first  of  them,  known  as  the  rule  of  “  lio-ht 
heavy,  is  simply  an  application  of  the  ordinary  argu¬ 
ment  “  from  less  to  greater/-  The  second,  the  rule  of  -  equiva- 
mfers  a  relation  between  two  subjects  from  the 
occurrence  of  identical  expressions.  Thus  it  is  said  both  of 
ic  babbath  and  the  Paschal  sacrifice  that  each  must  be  «  at 
its  due  season ”  and  if  this  means  that  the  daily  sacrifice 
must  be  offered  on  the  Sabbath,  then  the  Paschal  sacrifice 
may  also  be  offered  on  the  Sabbath.  The  third  rule  was 
" extension  from  the  special  to  the  general/’  Thus  since 
woik  might  be .  done  on  the  Sabbath  for  necessary  food, 
necessary  food  might  also  be  prepared  on  the  other  festivals 
I  he  fourth  rule  was  the  explanation  of  two  passages  by  a 
t  nrd.2  The  fifth  rule  was  inference  from  general  to  special 
cases.  The  sixth  was  explanation  from  the  analogy  of  other 
passages.3  The  seventh  was  the  application  of  inferences 
which  were  self-evident.  Some  of  these  rules  are  as  old  as 
the  unconscious  logic  of  the  human  mind ;  some  of  them  are 
exemplified  even  in  the  Law  of  Moses.  The  rule  of  “  analogy,” 
and  the  rule  of  “  light  and  heavy,”  were  used  by  our  Lord  Him¬ 
self  in  His  arguments  with  the  Pharisees,  and  in  His  teaching 
of  the  multitude.4  And  yet  in  the  hands  of  a  casuist  these 


from  special  to  general  4.  An  inference  from  several  passages.  5.  Inference 
fiom  the  general  to  the  special.  6.  Analogy  of  another  passage  7  A? 
inference  _  from  the  context.  For  these  seven  rules,  developed  by  Rabbi 
f  ,mael  mto  thirteen,  and  by  R.  Eleazar  into  thirty-two,  and  subsequently  to 
forty-nine,  see  Trenel,  Vie  de  Hillel ,  p.  34 ;  Crenius  Faseic Then w 

pp  afT^/V257/  DT?bofrrg}  p'  384’401  ;  Mer x,’ Bine  Rede  vom  Ailslegen, 
f P'  4o  ,  Larclay,  Talmud ,  40-44  ;  Ginsburg,  s.vv.  Midrash  Hillel  mtk! 

Sit?;  F7°'S  Weber,  AlUyn.  Theof.  106  ml 

U  a  i  n,  Theome  da  Judaisme,  i.  64-68.  On  the  relation  between  HilM’s 

Middtth Ta  &  866  ?™tZd  -iv-  £2%'  The  thirteen  rates  (Shelosh  Esreh 
Auldoth  ha-Tho.ah)  are  found  m  the  Jewish  Prayer-book.  The  additions  of 

h.  Eleazar  were  chiefly  Haggadistic.  See  Schwab,  Berakhoth,  Introd  p  liii 

l  Jhe  Jews  observed  that  this  rule  is  found  in  Num.  xii.  14.  P* 

re|atlon  established  between  two  passages  was  called  semuJcin 

(|  ?  ffr  ;  ?r  specimens  see  Berakhoth,  f.  10,  1  ;  Weber,  AUsyn.  Thcol.  120. 

m  *.fc  h  l ,  bf  aPplled  lo11?  before  Hillel  by  Simeon  ben  Shetach  in  a 

p.  I06°n  le  atmg  t0  the  I)umshment  of  false  witnesses.  See  Derenbourg, 

*  A 'Uihgy  •  of  David  and  the  Shewbread,  Matt.  xii.  5.  A  fortiori  (wocrco 

-  ;*°  the  sparrows  and  man,  Matt.  x.  29.  The  whole  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  is  an  a,  fortiori  argument.  1 

c  2 


20  Abuse  of  HilleTs  Rules. 

harmless-looking  principles  might  be  used,  and  were  used, 
to  give  plausibility  to  the  most  unwarrantable  conclusions. 
Thus  Rabbi  Eleazar,  the  teacher  of  Aqiba,  used  the  first 
rule — the  common  argument  a  fortiori — to  prove  that  the 
fire  of  Gehenna  had  no  power  over  Rabbinic  scholais.  Since 
(he  said)  fire  has  no  power  over  a  man  who  smeais  himself 
with  the  blood  of  a  salamander,  which  is  only  a  product  of 
fire,  how  much  less  will  it  prevail  over  a  pupil  of  the  wise 
whose  body  is  altogether  fire,  because  of  his  study  of  the 
Word  of  God,  which  in  Jer.  xxiii.  29  is  said  to  be  as  fire?1 
R.  Simon  ben  Lakisli  used  the  same  rule  to  prove  that  no 
Israelite  could  suffer  the  penalty  of  Gehenna.  The  gold  plate 
on  the  altar  resisted  fire,  how  much  more  even  a  transgressor 
of  Israel  ?2  But  worse  than  this,  these  rules  might  be  so  applied 
as  to  subvert  the  very  foundations  of  all  that  was  tenderest 
and  most  eternally  moral  in  the  Mosaic  Law.  The  second 
and  fourth  rules,  for  instance,  which  only  profess  to  explain 
passages  by  the  recurrence  of  phrases,  or  to  remove  contra¬ 
dictions  between  two  passages  by  reference  to  a  third,  sound 
perfectly  reasonable,  and  yet  were  made  responsible  for  many 
perversions.  Thus,  since  in  Ex.  xix.  26,  we  find  u  the  Lord  came 
down  upon  Mount  Sinai ,”  and  in  Deut.  iv.  86,  “  Out  of  hecvvcn 
He  made  thee  to  hear  His  voice,”  the  verbal  contradiction  is 
reconciled  by  Ex.  xx.  22,  “  Ye  have  seen  that  I  have  talked 
with  you  from  heaven,”  and  by  the  inference  that  God  bowed 
down  the  highest  heaven  upon  the  top  of  Mount  Sinai. 
Frivolities  of  this  kind  do  no  great  harm  ;  but  the  second  rule, 
which  deduced  inferences  from  “  equivalence  ”  of  expression, 
furnished  an  excuse  for  masses  of  the  most  absurd  conclusions.3 
Thus  it  is  argued  that  Job  married  Dinah  because  the  word 
“  a  foolish  woman  ”  is  applied  alike  to  the  daughter  of  Jacob 

1  Chagiga,  f.  27,  1. 

2  Id.  ib.  In  Sanhedrin,  f.  106,  2,  the  word  “weigher”  (A.  Y.  “receiver  ”) 
in  Is.  xxxiii.  18,  is  explained  to  mean  “  one  who  weighed  all  the  a  fortiori 
arguments  of  the  Law.” 

3  The  technical  name  of  this  rule  is  H“lTA  Thus  it  was  inferred  that 

the  brother-in-law’s  right  shoe  was  to  be  pulled  off  by  a  widow,  from  a  com¬ 
parison  of  Deut.  xxv.  9,  with  Lev.  xiv.  25.  It  is  inferred  that  Samuel  was  a 
Nazarite  from  the  comparison  of  1.  Sam.  i.  11,  with  Judg.  xiii.  5. 


21 


Abuse  of  Hillel’s  Rules. 

and  the  wife  of  Job ;  and  Lot,  contrary  to  the  express  testi¬ 
mony  of  Scripture,  is  represented  as  a  monster  of  iniquity,1 
because  it  is  said  that  “  Lot  lifted  up  his  eyes  and  saw  all  the 
plain  of  Jordan  that  it  was  well  watered,”  and  the  separate 
phrases  of  this  sentence  are  elsewhere  used  of  Potiphar’s 
wife,  of  Samson,  of  the  son  of  Hamor,  and  of  other  offenders.2 
It  was  a  still  more  serious  mischief  that  this  rule  led  to  one 
of  the  many  ways  in  which  Rabbinism,  professing  to  adore 
the  veiy  letter  of  the  Law,  sapped  its  most  fundamental 
principles.  In  Ex.  xxi.  5  a  Hebrew  servant  is  not  to  be 
dismissed  if  he  says,  “  I  love  my  master,  my  wife,  and  my 
children;  I  will  not  go  out  free.”  The  merciful  object  of 
the  Lawgiver  was  to  obviate  the  worst  curse  of  slavery— 
the  forcible  severance  of  the  nearest  relations.  In  Deut.  xv. 
16,  however,  the  word  “wife”  is  not  mentioned,  but  the 
slave  is  to  stay  with  his  master  if  he  says  that  he  loves 
his  master  and  his  house  “  because  it  is  well  with  him.” 
Whereupon,  since  it  was  often  burdensome  to  retain  a 
Hebrew  slave  in  the  sabbatical  year,  the  Mekhilta  thus 
applies  Hillers  second  and  fourth  rules.  The  slave  need  not 
be  kept  (1)  unless  he  has  a  wife  and  children,  and  (2)  his 
master  also  has  wife  and  children ;  nor  (3)  need  he  be  kept 
unless  the  master  loves  him,  as  well  as  he  the  master ;  and 
(1)  if  the  slave  be  lame  or  ill  he  need  not  be  kept,  because 
then  it  cannot  be  said  that  “  it  is  well  with  him.”  3  What  is  the 
result  of  this  unworthy  casuistry  ?  The  object  of  Moses  had 
been  to  provide  at  least  one  safeguard  against  the  abuse  of 
a  bad  but  tolerated  institution ;  the  object  of  the  Rabbinic 
logician  is  to  substitute  naked  formalism  for  a  merciful  law. 
By  mishandling  the  letter  he  purposely  and  for  his  own 
benefit  destroys  the  spirit.  Instead  of  a  noble  and  religious 
explanation  of  the  intention  of  the  Lawgiver,  he  supplies  us 
with  an  excuse  for  cruel  and  selfish  convenience.  This  rule 


l  Rabbi  Jochanan  (Nazir,  f.  23,  1),  Hershon,  Genesis,  p.  264 

-  Namely,  m  Gen.  xxxix.  7;  Judg.  xiv.  3;  Gen.  xxxiv.  2 
Also  the  same  word  (“132)  is  used  of  “the  plain ”  of  Jordan,  am 
of  bread  m  Prov.  vi.  26. 

3  Qiddushin,  f.  22,  1.  Merx,  Fine  Rede  vom  Auslegen,  p.  46. 


Hos.  ii.  5, 
“  a  piece  ’* 


22  Alexandrian  Hermeneutic. 

of  “equivalence”  lias  always  been  prevalent  in  scholastic 
systems.  It  means  the  isolation  of  phrases,  the  misap¬ 
plication  of  parallel  passages,  the  false  emphasising  ol 
accidental  words,  the  total  neglect  of  the  context,  “  the  ever- 
widening  spiral  ergo  from  the  narrow  aperture  of  single  texts.” 
It  is  just  as  prominent,  and  quite  as  mischievous,  in  Hilary 
and  Augustine,  in  Albert  and  Aquinas,  in  Gerhard  and 
Calovius,  as  in  Hillel  or  Ishmael.  Hillel  was  personally  a 
noble  Rabbi ;  yet  by  his  seven  rules  he  became  the  founder 
of  Talmudism,  with  all  its  pettiness,  its  perversion  of  the 
letter  of  the  Scripture  which  it  professed  to  worship,  and  its 
ignorance  of  the  spirit,  of  which  no  breath  seemed  to  breathe 
over  its  valley  of  dry  bones.  And  yet  let  me  say  in  passing 
—Jews  have  been  found  to  assert,  and  nominal  Christians  to 
repeat,  that  Jesus  was  a  disciple  of  Hillel,  and  borrowed  from 

Hillel  the  truths  which  He  revealed  ! 1 

2.  We  pass  to  the  second  epoch,  and  find  that  Alex- 
andrictnism  also  has  left  us  its  hermeneutic  principles.  Those 
principles  are  given  by  Philo  in  his  books  on  dreams,  and 
on  the  unchangeableness  of  God,2  and  the  details  of  their 
application  are  scattered  throughout  his  numerous  writings. 
Negatively  he  says  that  the  literal  sense  must  be  excluded 
when  anything  is  stated  which  is  unworthy  of  God when 
otherwise  a  contradiction  would  be  involved  ;  and  when 
Scripture  itself  allegorises.  Positively  the  text  is  to  be 
allegorised  when  expressions  are  doubled;  when  superfluous 
words  are  used ;  when  there  is  a  repetition  of  facts  already 
known  ;  when  an  expression  is  varied ;  when  synonyms  are 
employed  ;  when  a  play  of  words  is  possible  in  any  of  its 
varieties  ;  when  words  admit  of  a  slight  alteration ;  when  the 
expression  is  unusual ;  when  there  is  anything  abnormal  in 
the  number  or  tense.  Many  of  these  rules  are  not  peculiar 

1  So  first  of  all  Geiger,  followed  by  Friedlander,  Low,  Renan,  and  many 
others.  See  further  in  Lect.  II.  Hillel’s  rule,  “  The  more  law  the  more  life 
(Aboth,  ii.  8),  is  so  direct  an  antithesis  to  John  v.  39,  40,  that  our  Lord  might 

almost  seem  to  have  been  formally  repudiating  it.  . 

2  Quod  Deus  Immutabilis,  11  ;  JDe  Somniis,  i.  40.  For  the  details  as 
found  in  the  book,  De  Legis  Allegoi'iis,  and  Philo’s  other  treatises,  see 
Siegfried  Philo,  pp.  160-197.  Some  illustrations  are  given  infra ,  Lect.  III. 


23 


An  Art  of  Misinterpretation. 

to  Philo,  but  are  found  no  less  in  the  Midrashim,  and 
were  adopted  by  Origen.  They  point  to  methods  which 
ha\  e  been  applied  to  thousands  of  passages  during  entire 
centuries,  and  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  for  the  most  part 
they  do  but  systematise  the  art  of  misinterpretation.  They 
ha\e  furnished  volumes  of  baseless  application  without 
shedding  upon  the  significance  of  Scripture  one  ray  of  genuine 
light.  The  rules  become  still  more  futile  when  they  are  only 
applied  as  Philo  applied  them,  to  a  translation  abounding 
with  eirors ;  but  in  any  case  they  have  scarcely  a  particle 
of  validity.  The  repetition  "Abraham  Abraham"  does  not 
imply  that  Abraham  will  also  live  in  the  life  to  come ;  1  nor 
does  "Let  him  die  the  death"  mean  "Let  him  die  in  the 
next  world  as  well  as  in  this."  The  Septuagint  word, 
ijfcpv&as,  for  "cakes"  in  Gen.  xviii.  6  does  not  imply  the’ 
dutj  of  esotej  ic  teaching  • 2  nor  because  the  word /cocr/nos  means 
both  “  universe  "  and  «  adornment,"  does  it  follow  that  the  dress 
of  the  high  priest  is  (as  the  Book  of  Wisdom  tells  us)  a  symbol 
of  the  world.3  Such  explanations,  or  applications,  or  half- 
applications,  often  deduced  from  the  falsest  etymologies,4 
ma}  be  found  in  thousands  in  exegetical  literature,  from  the 
days  of  Philo  down  to  those  of  the  Beformation,  and  even 
much  later.  Must  we  not  deplore  so  fruitless  an  exercise  of 
fancy,  so  sterile  a  manipulation  of  the  Sacred  Book  ? 

3.  Let  us  pass  from  Philo  to  the  third  epoch.5  No  inter- 
pietei  except  Origen  and  Jerome  has  ever  exercised  so  deep 


1  Gen.  xxii.  11;  Lev.  xviii.  6.  Bereshith  rabba,  §  39,  56.  Philo,  JDe 
Tw  ™  2  De  Sacrif-  *  Cain.  15. 

•/V/^lIf  "  XVm’  24‘  Phll°’  De  Vlt"  Mos-  in-  14-  De  profug.  20.  De  Migr. 

. \  Tlie  identification  of  Rachel  with  contemplative,  Leah  with  practical 
jirtue,  adopted  by  Gregory  ( Homil .  in  Ezech.  ii.  2),  and  immortalised  by 
Dante .{Purged,  xxvn.  101-105),  partly  depends  on  the  derivation  of  Rachel 
from  ?n  HiO  opaais  £e/37?A aureus  ( Dc  congr.  erud.  grat.  §  6)  ;  though,  in 
another  aspect  Rachel  stands  for  things  wholly  different— e.g.  the  source  of 
te?Ptatlons  [De  poster.  Cain.  40)  and  of  earthly  hopes  {Leg.  Albegg  ii.  13) 
ihe  chief  hermeneutic  manuals  in  the  Patristic  epoch  are— 

Diodorus,  tis  Siocpopa.  dewpias  Kal  aWnyopias  (no  longer  extant). 
Adnanus,  EUraycoyf,  (a.d.  433.  It  is  printed  in  the  Critid  Sacri. 
vol.  ix.,  1660,  and  was  edited  by  D.  Hoeschel,  1602. 


[Eucherius 


24 


The  Rules  of  Tichonius. 

an  influence  on  the  modes  of  exegesis  as  Augustine.  His 
comments  are  sometimes  painfully  beside  the  mark,  but  we 
get  an  insight  into  the  erroneous  methods  by  which  he  was 
led  astray  when  we  find  him  endorsing  with  warm  praise  the 
seven  rules  of  Tichonius.1  Those  rules  are  as  baseless  as 
Philo’s,  and  even  more  so  than  those  of  Hillel.  A  book 
written  by  Eucherius,  Bishop  of  Treves  about  the  year  450, 
called  Liber  Formularum  Spiritalis  Intelligenticce ,  shows  the 
lengths  to  which  allegory  had  been  developed  before  the 
fifth  century.  In  this  dull  and  desultory  dictionary  of 
metaphors  everything  is  reduced  to  generalities  and  abstrac¬ 
tions.2  It  is  argued  that  all  Scripture  must  be  allegorically 
interpreted  because  David  says,  “  I  will  open  my  mouth  in 
parables,  loquar  in  aenigmate  antiqua!' 3  The  argument 
which  does  not  hesitate  to  apply  to  the  whole  literature  of 
a  millennium  and  a-half  the  misinterpreted  expression  which 
the  Psalmist  used  of  a  single  psalm,  is  a  fair  specimen  of 
the  futility  of  the  proofs  offered  in  defence  of  these  bad 
methods.4  The  rules  of  Tichonius  had  apparently  been 

Eucherius  Lugdunensis,  Liber  formularum  spiritalis  intelligentiac 
(a.d.  440  ;  Bibl.  Patr.  Colon,  vol.  v.  1  ;  Migne  vol.  50). 

Tichonius,  Be  Septem  Regulis  {Bibl.  Max.  Patr.  Lugdun.  vol.  vi. 
p.  839). 

Hieronymus,  Be  optimo  genera  interpretandi  ( Ep .  ad  Pammachium). 
id.  Be  studio  scripturarum  {Ep.  ad  Paulinum  Presbyterum) . 

Junilius,  Be  partibus  legis  divinae  (circ.  A.d.  550,  Bibl.  Max.  Patr. 
Lugdun.  vol.  x.  p.  340). 

Cassiodorus,  Institutiones  (circ.  a.d.  560).  {Opp.  ed.  Garet.,  1679, 
Migne,  vol.  69.) 

I  do  not  add  the  so-called  Claris  of  Melito,  because  it  is  not  a  translation 
of  the  KAels  of  Melito  of  Sardis,  but,  as  Steitz  has  proved,  a  mediaeval  Latin 
work  {Stud.  u.  Krit.  1857). 

1  Be  doctr.  Christ,  iii.  30-37. 

2  Thus  the  “head  of  God ”  is  the  essential  divinity  ;  the  “ hair  ”  the  Holy 
Angels  or  the  elect;  the  “eyelids”  His  incomprehensible  judgments;  His 
“mouth”  is  Christ;  His  “lips”  the  agreement  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  &c.,  &c.  This  book,  which  occupies  seventeen  folio  pages,  is  a  melan¬ 
choly  proof  of  the  depths  to  which  exegesis  had  sunk.  Eucherius  is  the 
first  to  use  the  word  avayuyr],  to  imply  the  reference  of  Scriptural  passages  to 
the  New  Jerusalem.  The  Libellus  de  formulis  has  been  edited  by  Franc  Pauly. 

3  The  remark  is  borrowed  from  Clem.  Alex.,  Strom,  v.  12,  §  81.  n repl 
tt(x(T7]S  ypacprjs  .  .  .  iv  rots  \l/a\/uo?s  yeypanrai  us  tv  Trapa&oXrj  elprydevois.  He 
proves  his  point  from  isolated  passages  like  Ps.  lxxviii.  2  ;  1.  Cor.  ii.  6  ; 
Matt.  x.  27  ;  Mark  iv.  34,  &c.  [Strom,  vi.  15,  §  125.) 

4  The  Psalm  itself  (Ps.  lxxviii.)  bears  no  resemblance  to  what  we  call  “a 
parable,”  nor  does  it  contain  anything  enigmatic. 


The  Rules  of  Tichonius.  25 

designed  to  bring  some  sort  of  method  into  this  vast 
region  of  Phantasy,  which  existed  long  before  the  days 
of  Eucherius.  He  thought  so  highly  of  them  as  “claves 
ct  laminaria  to  the  law  and  the  prophets,  as  to  assert 
that  they  furnish  a  secure  protection  against  the  possibility 
of  error.1  The  first  is  “  About  the  Lord  and  His 
mystic  body,”  namely  the  Church.  Thus  in  the  same 
passage  one  clause,  such  as,  dolores  nostros  ipse  portavit, 
applies  to  Christ,  but  following  clauses,  such  as  Reus  vult , 
ostcndere  illi  lucem  et  formare  ilium  in  prudential  apply  not 
to  Christ  but  to  the  Church.  And  in  Is.  lxi.  10,  Sicut  sponso 
imposuit  mihi  mitram ,  applies  to  Christ,  but  the  following 
clause,  et  sicut  sponsam  donavit  me  amictu,  applies  only  to  the 
Church.3  The  second  rule  was  “  about  the  Lord’s  bipartite 
body,”  or  about  true  and  false  Christians.  Thus,  in  Cant.  i.  5, 

1  am  black  but  comely,  the  first  epithet  refers  to  false  Chris¬ 
tians  ,  the  second  to  true  Christians.  The  third  rule 
“  about  the  Promises  and  the  Law,”  is  theological.4  The 
fouith  rule  is  “  about  Genus  and  Species,”  or  whole  and  part. 
According  to  this,  all  nations  mentioned  m  Scripture  are 
types  of  Churches  and  may  represent  either  the  good  or  the 
bad  side  of  the  Church,  and  the  words  of  the  Scripture  may 
with  constant  arbitrary  variation,  refer  sometimes  to  the 
whole  Church,  sometimes  to  a  part  of  it.  The  fifth  rule 
suggests  a  sort  of  kabbahsm  of  numbers.  The  sixth  rule 

About  Recapitulation,  professes  to  account  liarmonistically 
for  events  which  are  related  out  of  order,  and  supposes  a 
soit  of  v ague  analogy  between  different  cycles  of  generations. 
The  last  rule  about  the  devil  and  his  body,”  is  the  counter- 
pait  of  the  first  and  proposes  to  teach  us  how  we  are  to  apply 
some  passages  to  the  devil  and  some  to  wicked  men.5  These 

.  1  Gennadi  us  cites  them  as  being  meant  “ad  investigandam  ct  inveniendum 
intclligentiam  scripturarum.  ” 

2  Is.  liii.  4. 

3  Is.  lxi.  16.  Yulg.  “  Induit  me  vestimentis  salutis  .  .  .  quasi  sponsum 
decoratum  corona,  et  quasi  sponsam  omatam  monilibus  suis.” 

4  It  is  also  called  “  Be  spiritu  et  literd,”  “  De  gratid  ct  mandate.  ” 

d*.g.  in  Is.  xi\.  3.  Quomodo  cccidisti  de  coelo  applies  to  the  devil  :  cocmiisti 
in  terram  to  the  ungodl}\ 


26 


Other  False  Rules. 


rules  are  perfectly  arbitrary  ;  but  Augustine  in  tliree  different 
passages,  and  after  him  Cassiodorus 1  and  Isidore  of  Seville 
refer  to  them  with  marked  praise,  and  consider  that  they 
throw  no  small  light  on  the  hidden  senses  of  Scripture.2 
Partly  owing  to  Augustine’s  approval  they  became  for  a 
thousand  years  the  fountain-head  of  unnumbered  misin¬ 
terpretations.3 

4.  It  will  not  be  needful  here  to  do  more  than  allude  to 
the  erroneous  principles  of  the  other  epochs.  Throughout  the 
whole  of  the  scholastic  epoch  (4)  dominated  the  pure  fiction 
of  the  multiplex  intelligentia ,  or  “  fourfold  sense,”  which  fills 
volumes  of  elaborate  commentary,4  and  which,  together  with 
the  unquestioned  acceptance  of  false  traditions  and  usurped 
authority,  vitiates  the  popular  compendiums  of  five  hundred 
years.  The  Reformation  (5)  witnessed  an  immense  advance  ; 
but  (6)  in  the  epoch  which  succeeded  it,  the  mediaeval  subordi¬ 
nation  of  Scriptural  study  to  Papal  authority  was  succeeded  by 
another  subordination  of  it,  nominally  to  a  so-called  “  Analogy 
of  Scripture,”  really  to  the  current  Confessions  of  the  various 
Churches.  The  whole  Bible  from  Genesis  downwards  was  forced 
to  speak  the  language  of  the  accepted  formulae,  and  the  £‘  perspi¬ 
cuity  of  Scripture  ”  was  identified  with  the  facility  with  which 
it  could  be  forced  into  semblable  accordance  with  dogmatic 


1  Cassiodorus,  Institt.  i.  10.  On  Tichonius  see  Gennadius,  De  Script.  Eccl. 
18  ;  Trithemius,  De  Script.  Eccl.  92.  Cave,  Hist.  Lit.  p.  275  ;  Migne,  Patrolog. 
vol.  50  ;  Tillemont,  vi.  81  ;  Neander,  iii.  280  ;  Klausen,  Hermen,  p.  133  ; 
Semler,  Diss.  Hist,  de  mi.  regulis  Tichonii,  Halae,  1756  ;  A.  Vogel  in  Herzog. 
vol.  xvi. 

2  Ticlionius  said,  “  Quarum  si  ratio  .  .  .  accepta  fuerit,  clausa  quaeque 
patefient  et  obscura  dilucidabuntur.”  Augustine  says,  “Non  parum  adjuvant 
ad  penetranda  quae  tecta  sunt.”  De  Doctr.  Christ,  iii.  4,  §  30.  Retradt.  ii. 
18.  Contra  Epist.  Parmeniani,  i.  See  too  Jer .Devirr.  illustr.  18. 

3  Augustine  vaguely  saw  in  them  a  Donatist  taint  :  “  quae  sicut  Donatista 
loquitur,”  De  Doctr.  Christ,  iii.  §  43.  They  are  still  referred  to  by  Hugo  of 
St.  Victor  ( Erud .  Did.  v.  4)  ;  and  Perez  of  Valentia  (f  1490).  Incomparably 
superior  was  the  Elaayuyrj  Pis  r as  deias  ypacpas  of  Adrianus.  He  says  that 
three  things  are  to  be  considered,  the  hiavoia,  the  A e£is,  and  the  crvvdeais, 
through  which  we  arrive  at  Oewpla.  His  book  belongs  to  the  school  of 
Antioch,  and  aims  at  edification  not  by  allegory  but  by  facts,  and  by  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  types.  Till  the  days  of  Nicolas  of  Lyra  it  had  little  influence. 
Among  the  Roman  Catholics  Santes  Pagninus  (1540)  still  holds  to  Tichonius. 

4  The  first  traces  of  the  fourfold  sense  occur  in  Eucherius  (t  450) ;  of  the 
threefold  sense  in  Origen. 


27 


Task  of  the  Expositor. 

systems.  To  this  day  men  repeat  the  vague  and  extravagant 
assertions  of  seventeenth  century  divines,  which  furnish  no 
assistance  and  solve  no  difficulty,  and  which  can  only  be  main¬ 
tained  in  detail  by  an  accumulation  of  special  pleas.1  They 
confidently  take  the  words  they  find  in  use  among  their 
neighbours,  without  much  troubling  their  heads  about  a 
certain  fixed  meaning  ;  “  whereby/’  says  Locke,  “  besides  the 
ease  of  it,  they  obtain  this  advantage,  that  as  in  such  dis¬ 
courses  they  seldom  are  in  the  right,  so  they  are  as  seldom 
to  be  convinced  that  they  are  in  the  wrong ;  it  being  all  one 
to  go  about  to  draw  men  out  of  their  mistakes  who  have  no 
settled  notions,  as  to  dispossess  a  vagrant  of  his  habitation 
who  has  no  settled  abode.” 

IV.  Many  of  these  unfounded  principles  still  exercise  a  per¬ 
nicious  influence.  In  the  past  they  have  introduced  an 
incredible  amount  of  confusion  and  darkness.  The  task  of 
the  expositor  cannot  be  expedited  by  rules  so  mechanical.  It 
requires  wide  knowledge,  it  requires  the  still  rarer  gift  of  a 
fine  sympathy.  To  interpret  aright  the  lyric  cry  of  the 
poet,  the  passion  of  the  prophet,  the  rushing  vehemence  of 
the  orator,  demands  something  of  the  poet’s,  the  prophet’s, 
the  orator’s  emotion.  Quite  apart  from  all  need  for  spiritual 
vision,  a  sense  of  style,  a  psychological  insight,  an  exquisite 
literary  tact,  a  capacity  to  appreciate  the  varying  shades  of 
thought  which  may  lie  hidden  behind  the  same  words,  a 
power  of  realising  and  reproducing  the  thoughts  of  men 

1  Thus  they  repeat  Hollaz  and  Quenstedt  in  calling  Scripture  a  perpetua 
norma  fidci  ac  vitae  in  universd  ecclesid  without  explaining  the  wide  difference 
between  the  spirit  of  Judaism  and  that  of  Christianity,  and  although  we 
set  aside  a  host  of  positive  regulations,  and  some  even  of  those  which  are 
found  in  the  New  Testament  (Acts  xv.  20  ;  Jas.  v.  14).  They  go  on  speaking 
of  the  “ Perspicuity  and  self -interpreting  faculty  ”  of  Scripture,  though 
the  strife  of  interpretations  cries  to  heaven  even  in  passages  of  the  utmost 
importance.  The  Church  of  Rome  forbids  us  to  interpret  “  contra  unanimem 
consensum  Patrum,”  though  exegetically  there  is  no  such  thing ;  and  the 
dogmas  of  verbal  dictation  and  infallibility  still  find  defenders  in  spite  of  the 
facts  that  (1)  they  must  be  useless  to  millions  who  cannot  read  the  original  ; 
that  (2)  the  Vulgate  of  the  Latin  Church,  the  Septuagint  of  the  Greek  Church, 
and  the  various  Protestant  versions  teem  with  errors  ;  that  (3)  alike  the 
original  text  and  its  true  meaning  are  in  many  passages  entirely  uncertain  ; 
and  that  (4)  the  hermeneutic  rules  adopted  by  different  branches  of  the 
Church  are  widely  different. 


28 


False  Views. 


who  lived  in  other  lands  and  in  ages  far  away,  are  gifts 
which  are  none  so  common  as  to  render  it  likely  that  the 
work  of  Scriptural  Interpretation  will  soon  be  exhausted.  But 
so  long  as  we  are  entangled  in  a  priori  conceptions — while 
we  treat  as  though  it  were  one  continuous  and  coaeval  book 
the  scattered  literature  of  fifteen  hundred  years — while  we 
attach  the  same  value  to  the  rudimentary  religious  conceptions 
of  a  nomad  warrior  and  the  deepest  thoughts  of  a  great 
philosophical  Apostle, — while  we  deal  with  the  Old  Testament 
as  if  it  stood  on  the  same  level  of  revelation  as  the  New — 
while,  in  defiance  of  the  whole  history  of  the  canon  we  give 
the  title  of  “  Word  of  God  ”  as  indiscriminately  to  the  Books 
of  Chronicles  or  Ecclesiastes,  or  to  books  in  which,  as  in 
Esther  or  Canticles,  the  name  of  God  does  not  so  much  as 
once  occur,  as  we  do  to  the  Gospel  of  St.  John — while  we 
speak  of  God  as  the  auctor  primarius  not  only  of  the  deepest, 
sweetest,  purest,  noblest  thoughts  which  have  ever  been 
uttered  by  human  lips,  but  no  less  of  the  savage  impre¬ 
cations  of  Jewish  exiles  against  their  enemies  and  of  terrible 
narratives  which  only  prove  the  imperfect  morality  of  times 
of  ignorance  : — so  long  as  we  do  this  we  cannot  take  one 
step  farther  in  the  right  direction.  A  dogma  which 
attaches  to  the  crudest  ~and  least  spiritual  narrative  of 
Genesis  or  Judges  the  same  ethical  value  and  supernatural 
infallibility  as  to  the  words  of  Christ,  is  the  deathblow  to  all 
sane,  all  manly,  all  honest  interpretation.1  Yet  this  dogma 
prevailed  for  ages.  If  such  a  view  of  inspiration  were 
alone  orthodox  or  admissible  no  man  of  unwarped  intelli¬ 
gence  would  have  any  refuge  save  in  heterodoxy.  So  far 
as  this  age  has  advanced  beyond  the  exegetic  principles 
of  the  Talmud  or  the  Schoolmen,  it  has  been  by 
naturalness,  by  independence,  by  fearless  allegiance  to 
truth,  by  searching  Scripture  not  merely  to  “  improve  ”  it 
into  moral  commonplaces,  or  to  torture  it  into  the  utterance 

1  “It  is  impossible  rightly  to  comprehend  Scripture  if  we  read  it  as  we  read 
the  Koran,  as  though  it  were  in  all  its  parts  of  equal  authority,  all  composed 
at  one  time,  and  all  addressed  to  persons  similarly  situated.”' — Dr.  Arnold. 


29 


Perversion  of  Texts. 

of  sectarian  shibboleths  but  to  discover  what  the  writers 
really  meant  and  really  said.  The  Rabbis,  the  Alexandrians, 
the  Fathers,  the  Schoolmen,  the  Protestant  dogmatists  all 
assure  us,  and  that  repeatedly,  that  the  words  of  the 
Old  Testament  are,  in  their  literal  sense  and  their  obvious 
meaning,  sometimes  trivial,  sometimes  imperfect,  sometimes 
morally  erroneous.  In  such  cases  they  got  rid  of  the  letter 
by  distorting  it  into  the  expression  of  some  sentiment  of 
their  own  by  the  aid  of  allegory.  What  we  should  rather 
do  is  always  to  accept  the  clear  meaning  of  Scripture,  but 
always  to  judge  it  by  the  clear  light  of  Christ.1 

But  we  cannot  yet  be  said  to  have  learnt  the  lessons  of 
the  past  in  all  their  fulness,  while  so  many  of  the  proof 
texts  in  common  use  are  mistaken  accommodations ;  and 
while  Ave  follow  the  strange  practice  of  establishing  disputed 
doctrines  by  a  mosaic  of  passages  taken  out  of  authors 
who  not  only  differed  from  each  other,  but  who  may  even 
—like  St.  James,  for  instance,  and  St.  Paul,  or  like  St. 
Paul  and  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews — use 
the  same  technical  A\Tords  in  different  meanings.  Better 
even  the  antitheses  of  Marcion,  and  sic  et  non  of  Abelard, 
than  much  of  the  casuistry  which  has  passed  for  the 
orthodox  reconciliation  of  apparent  contradictions.  Till  Ave 
cease  to  palter  and  juggle  with  the  words  of  Scripture  in 
a  double  sense  ;  till  Ave  cease  to  assume  that  the  Trinity 
is  revealed  in  the  beginning  of  Genesis,  and  that 
Canticles  furnishes  a  proof  of  the  duty  of  Mariolatry  ■ 
till  we  abandon  our  ‘  atomistic’  method  of  dealing  with 
Scripture  and  the  treatment  of  its  sentences  as  though  they 
were  magic  formulae ;  till  Ave  repent  of  the  fetish-worship 


•  1  JVm-  20 J  .r.T°  tlle  lawand  the  testimony.  If  they  speak  not  accord - 
ing  to  this  word  it  is  because  there  is  no  light  in  them.”  John  vi.  39.  The 
Jewish  Midrash  was  very  elaborate,  but  it  did  not  lead  to  Christ.”  A  Scotch 
divine  has  wisely  said  “  If  we  find  even  in  the  Bible  anything  which  confuses 
our  sense  of  light  and  wrong,  that  seems  to  us  less  exalted  and  pure  than  the 
character  of  God  should  be  ;  if  after  the  most  patient  thought  and  prayerful 
pondering  it  still  retains  this  aspect,  then  we  are  not  to  bote  down  to  it  as  God’s 
revelation  to  us  since  it  does  not  meet  the  need  of  the  earlier  and  more  sacred 
revelation  lie  has  given  us  in  our  own  spirit  and  conscience,  which  testify  of 


30 


False  Views. 


which  made  some  of  the  Jewish  theologians  say  that  all  the 
law  was  of  equal  importance  from  “  God  is  one  God  ”  to 

Timna  was  the  concubine  of  Eliphaz  ;  ”  1  till  we  give  up  the 
late  and  humanly  invented  theories  which  with  a  blasphemy 
only  pardonable  because  it  was  unconscious,  treated  the  voices  of 
human  anger  and  human  imperfection  as  the  articulate  Yoice 
of  God  ;  till  we  admit  that  the  Bible  cannot  and  may  not  be 
dealt  with  by  methods  of  which  it  gives  no  indication,  and 
of  which  we  see  the  absurdity  when  they  are  applied  to  every 
other  form  of  literature  whether  sacred  or  profane — we  may 
produce  improved  forms  of  Rabbinism  or  Scholasticism,  at 
our  pleasure  and  at  our  peril,  but  we  shall  never  clearly 
understand  what  is,  and  what  is  not,  the  purport  of  the 
revelation  contained  in  Scripture.  There  was  bitter  truth 
in  the  reproach  of  St.  Augustine  to  the  Donatists,  Quod 
volumus  sanctum  est  ;2  and  in  the  sarcasm  of  St.  Jerome, 
Quicquid  dixerint  hoc  legem  Dei  qputant ;  3  and  in  the  famous 
epigram  of  Werenfels — 

“  Hie  liber  est  in  qno  quaerit  sua  dogmata  quisque 
Invenit  et  pariter  dogmata  quisque  sua.” 

V.  It  would  be  easy  to  furnish  still  further  proof  of  the 
position  that  in  every  age  since  the  days  of  the  Apostles 
there  have  been  false  methods  of  exegesis,  and  that  these 
false  methods  have  led  to"  false  results.  It  is  startlingly 
illustrated  by  the  fact  that  the  very  word  by  which  we 
designate  the  two  divisions  of  the  Bible  as  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  is  a  mistranslation  and  a  mistake. 4  It  might  be 

1  Lekach  Tob.  (quoted  in  Erscb  und  Gruber,  s.v.  Inspiration). 

2  Aug.  c.  Ep.  Parmeniani,  ii.  §  31. 

3  Ep.  ad  Panlin.  7. 

4  The  word  a  Testament  ”  is  derived  from  Matt.  xxvi.  28.  2  Cor.  iii. 

14,  &c.  (comp.  Jer.  xxxi.  31.)  St.  Jerome  rendered  JYH?  “covenant,”  by 

foedus  or  pactum,  but  it  had  been  rendered  testamentum  in  older  Latin  versions. 
Tertullian  prefers  instrumentum ,  but  adopts  testamentum  as  being  in  common 
use  ( c .  Marc.  iv.  1,  2  ;  De  Pudic.  12).  Augustine  also  uses  both  words  ( Dc 
Civ.  Dei.  xx.  4).  Luther  adopted  Testament  in  preference  to  Bund,  and  since 
his  time  the  usage  has  been  fixed.  But  the  Jews  knew  nothing  of  wills  till 
they  became  acquainted  with  Roman  customs.  ]YH3  never  means  anything 
but  covenant;  and  in  the  New  Testament  Siad-riKT]  only  has  the  meaning  of 
“a  will”  by  a  sort  of  play  upon  words  in  Heb.  ix.  17.  Neither  division  of 
the  Bible  has  the  smallest  analogy  to  “a  will,”  so  that  the  explanation  offered 
by  Lactantius  ( Instt .  Div.  iv.  20)  is  quite  inadequate. 


Misunderstood  BooJcs. 


31 


shown  by  taking  any  single  book  and  proving,  chapter  by 
chapter,  the  impossibility  and  often  even  the  absurdity  of  the 
many  divergent  interpretations  of  its  salient  passages.  It 
might  be  shown  again  by  a  catena,  from  almost  any  part  of 
Scripture,  of  passages  which  have  for  centuries  together  been 
explained  in  a  manner  now  abandoned  as  entirely  untenable. 
We  may  illustrate  it  still  more  decisively  by  showing  the 
hopeless  confusion  which  has  reigned  among  commentators 
about  the  general  drift  and  significance  of  whole  books  of 
Scripture.  For  instance,  is  it  no  opprobrium  to  Christian 
scholarship  that  for  seventeen  centuries  no  Christian 
scholar  before  Joachim  Oporin  had  discovered  the  continuous 
design  and  central  conception  of  the  First  Epistle  of  St. 
John,  of  which  St.  Augustine  had  nothing  better  to  say  than 
locuturus  est  multa  ct  prope  omnia  de  cavitate  ;  and  Calvin 
nothing  better  than  Sparsim  docendo  et  exhortando  varius  est  ? 
Let  us,  however,  take  the  more  striking  case  of  one  of  the 
Books  ol  the  Old  Testament,  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes. 
Even  the  name  of  it,  both  in  Greek  and  Hebrew,  is  of 
disputed  meaning;  and,  difficult  as  the  book  is,  Luther 
said  that  it  is  almost  more  difficult  to  clear  the  author 
from  the  fancies  palmed  upon  him  than  to  develop  his 
meaning.  Some  of  the  Rabbis  attacked  it  as  being  not 
only  apocryphal  in  authorship,  but  heretical  in  tendency.1 
These  conclusions  were  only  escaped  by  a  liberal  use  of 
allegory.  Even  in  the  fifteenth  century  R.  Isaac  ben  Aramah 
complains  that  some  expounded  it  with  far-fetched  literalism, 
others  philosophically,  others  traditionally,  and  that  all  alike 
had  altered  its  meaning  into  palatable  sentiments,  while  none 
of  them  had  “  drawn  sweetness  from  this  flint.”  2  St.  Jerome 
and  St.  Augustine  by  extreme  applications  of  the  allegoric 

1  Megilla,  f.  /,  1  ;  Shabbath,  f.  30,  2.  “0  Solomon,  where  is  tby  wisdom  ? 

.  .  .  Thy  words  not  only  contradict  those  of  David  tby  father  ;  but  they 
contradict  themselves.”  Vayikra  Rabba.  f.  161,  2.  Jer.  in  Eccl.  xii.  13.  See 
Ginsburg,  Coheleth ,  p.  lo.  Wogue,  Hist,  de  la  Bible,  p.  61.  It  narrowly 
escaped  ejection  from  the  canon  by  the  school  of  Shammai  because  of  (1)  its 
contradictions  and  (2)  its  supposed  epicureanism  (Midrash  Koheleth  on  Eccl. 
xi.  9). 

2  See  Ginsburg,  p.  66. 


32 


Ecclesiastes. 


method  explain  it  as  alluding  to  Christ  and  the  sacraments, 
and  are  followed  by  the  Schoolmen. 1  Olympiodorus  declared 
that  it  is  a  treatise  of  natural  philosophy ;  Hugo  of  St. 
Victor  that  it  is  meant  to  teach  us  to  despise  the  world; 
Brentius  and  Luther,  reversing  the  judgment  of  the  Mystics, 
said  that  it  was  meant  to  teach  not  the  contempt  but  the 
enjoyment  of  the  blessings  of  life.  Melanchthon  supposed 
that  it  was  designed  to  prove  an  overruling  Providence  and 
a  future  judgment.  De  Wette,  on  the  other  hand,  thought 
that  the  writer  inclined  to  fatalism,  scepticism,  and  epi¬ 
cureanism,  and  gave  no  hope  of  a  future  life.  Heine  calls  it 
“  the  Song  of  Scepticism/’  and  Delitzsch  “  the  Song  of  the 
Fear  of  God.”  2  Surely  if  it  be  so  difficult  for  students  to 
grasp  the  drift  and  meaning  of  an  entire  book,  their  views  as 
to  the  meaning  of  separate  passages  must  often  be  extremely 
fallible. 

Many  other  instances  might  be  furnished,  e.g.  the  Book  of 
Esther,3  the  Prophecy  of  Hosea,  the  Apocalypse,  the  Song  of 
Solomon.  Can  anything  be  more  grotesque  and  more 
melancholy  than  the  vast  mass  of  hypotheses  about  the 
latter — hypotheses  which  can  make  anything  of  anything  ? 
Like  Esther  it  never  mentions  the  name  of  God  and  it 
narrowly  escaped  exclusion  from  the  canon. 4  It  re- 

1  e.g.  Ch.  iv.  8.  “  The  eye  is  not  satisfied  with  seeing."  “  Christ  is  always 

desiring  and  seeking  our  salvation.”  ii.  24.  “  There  is  nothing  letter  for 

a  man  than  that  he  should  eat  and  drink.”  It  is  good  to  partake  of  the 
Lord’s  Supper.  Jer.  x.  16,  “  Woe  to  thee,  0  land,  when  thy  king  is  a  child.” 
Ecclesiastes  calls  the  devil  a  child  because  of  his  foolishness.  Aug.  i.  7,  “  All 
the  rivers  flow  into  the  sea.”  Joys  end  in  sorrow.  (K.  of  St.  Victor),  xii.  5, 
“  The  almond  tree  shall  flourish  ”  “  The  almond  tree  is  Christ — the  rind,  the 

shell,  and  the  kernel  correspond  to  the  flesh,  the  mind,  and  His  Divinity.” — 
Peter  Lombard. 

2  Delitzsch,  Eccl.  p.  183  (E.  Tr.) 

3  “  The  Book  of  Esther  is  not  once  quoted  in  the  New  Testament.  It  was 
not  considered  canonical  by  two  considerable  Fathers,  Melito  and  Gregory 
Nazianzen.  It  contains  no  prophecy,  it  has  nothing  on  the  surface  to  dis¬ 
tinguish  it  from  a  mere  ordinary  history  ;  nay,  it  has  no  mark  on  the  surface 
of  being  a  religious  history,  not  once  does  it  mention  the  name  of  God,  or 
Lord.”  Tracts  for  the  Times,  vol.  v.  “Creed  and  Canon  compared.”  The 
name  of  the  King  of  Persia  occurs  in  Esther  187  times. 

4  See  Shabbath,  f.  30.  2  ;  Aboth  of  Eabbi  Nathan  ;  Yadaim,  iii.  2,  and 
Maimonides,  ad  loc.  Wogue,  Hist,  de  la  Bible  pp.  56,  65.  It  owed  its  admis¬ 
sion  to  the  mystic  interpretation.  Munk,  Palestine,  p.  450.  The  Jews  for¬ 
bade  any  one  to  read  it  before  the  age  of  thirty,  and  anathematised  its  literal 
interpretation.  Sanhedrin,  iii.  1. 


33 


Song  of  Solomon. 


presents,  say  the  Commentators,  the  love  of  the  Lord 
for  the  congregation  of  Israel;1  it  relates  the  history 
of  the  Jews  from  the  Exodus  to  the  Messiah;2  it  is 
a  consolation  to  afflicted  Israel ; 3  it  is  an  occult  history ; 4 
it  lepiesents  the  union  of  the  divine  soul  with  the  earthly 
body;5  or  of  the  material  with  the  active  intellect;6  it  is 
the  conversation  of  Solomon  and  Wisdom  ; 7  it  describes  the 
love  of  Christ  to  His  Church ;  8  it  is  historico-prophetical ;  9 
it  is  Solomon’s  thanksgiving  for  a  happy  reign;10  it  is  a 
love-song  unworthy  of  anyplace  in  the  sacred  canon;11  it 
tieats  of  mans  leconciliation  to  God;12  it  is  a  prophecy  of 
the  Church  from  the  Crucifixion  till  after  the  Reformation ; 13 
it  is  an  anticipation  of  the  Apocalypse ; 14  it  is  the  seven  days 
epithcdamium  on  the  marriage  of  Solomon  with  the  daughter 
of  Pharaoh;15  it  is  a  magazine  for  direction  and  consolation 
under  every  condition ; 16  it  treats  in  hieroglyphics  of  the 
sepulchre  of  the  Saviour,  His  death,  and  the  Old  Testament 
saints  ,  it  refers  to  Hezekiah  and  the  ten  tribes ; 18  it  is 
written  in  glorification  of  the  Virgin  Mary. 19  Such  were 
the  impossible  and  divergent  interpretations  of  what  many 
i  eg  aided  as  the  very  Word  of  God  ! 20  A  few  only  till  the 
beginning  of  this  century  saw  the  clear  truth — which  is  so 
obvious  to  all  who  go  to  the  Bible  with  the  humble  desire 
to  read  wdiat  it  says  and  not  to  import  into  it  their  own 
baseless  fancies — that  it  is  the  exquisite  celebration  of  a 
Pure  love  in  humble  life  ;  of  a  love  which  no  splendour  can 
dazzle  and  no  flattery  seduce.21 


1  The  Targum  *  R.  Saadia  Gaon.  3  Rashi.  4  ibn  Ezra. 

Joseph  Ibn  Caspe.  Ibn  Tibbon.  7  Abravanel.  8  Origen,  and 

lie  mass  ol  Christian  expositors,  except  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  the  school  of 
Antioch,  and  most  modern  scholars.  9  Nicolas  of  Lyra.  ]0  Luther  Brenz. 

Castellio,  Dr.  Noyes.  12  Ainsworth.  13  Cocceius. 

14  Henmschms.  «  Bossuet.  48  Durham.  47  Puffendorf. 

‘>0  t Ug*  .  Many  Roman  Catholic  Commentators, 

f  o.J48  the  favourite  theme  of  mediaeval  exegesis.  The  eiglity-six  sermons 
of  St  Bernard  only  come  down  to  the  end  of  the  second  chapter. 

t  i  YieAy  the  way  was  led  by  Grotius,  Bossuet,  Lowth,  Herder 

Jacobi,  &c.  It  is  adopted  by  Ewald,  Hirzel,  Umbreit,  Meier,  Friederich, 
tlitzig,  and  most  of  the  best  modern  commentators.  See  the  admirable 
summary  given  by  Dr.  Ginsburg,  and  by  Zockler  in  Lange’s  Bibelwerk. 
Luther  might  well  say,  “Quodsi  erro  veniam  meretur  primus  labor,  nam 
aliorum,  cogitationes  longe  plus  absurditatis  habent.  ” 


D 


34 


First  Verse  of  Scripture. 

When,  however,  we  leave  the  consideration  of  whole  books 
we  need  not  go  farther  than  the  interpretation  of  the  first 
chapter,  and  even  the  first  verse  of  the  Bible  without  being 
forced  to  confess  that  exegesis  has  stamped  even  its  initial 
labours  with  the  impress  of  its  own  incompetency.  Surely  if 
ever  a  revelation  was  clear,  simple,  majestic,  of  infinite  im¬ 
portance,  it  is  the  verse :  In  the  beginning  God  created  the 
heaven  and  the  earth.  It  is  the  basis  of  all  Monotheism  ,  the 
eternal  protest  of  the  human  heart  enlightened  by  the  Spirit 
of-  God,  against  every  prominent  form  of  error  respecting  His 
Being.  It  corrects,  as  with  one  stroke  of  the  pen,  the  aber¬ 
rations  of  millions  of  mankind  ;  of  the  few  Atheists  who  have 
said  there  is  no  God  ;  of  the  numberless  Polytheists,  belonging 
alike  to  the  most  refined  and  to  the  most  degraded  races,  who 
have  worshipped  many  gods  ;  of  the  philosophic  dreamers  to 
whom  God  has  only  been  a  name  for  the  soul  of  the  universe ; 
of  the  whole  heathen  races  and  the  Manichean  heretics  who 
believed  in  two  gods  ]  of  the  moderns  who,  whether  within  or 
without  the  Church’s  fold,  deny  that  we  can  know  anything 
about  God ;  even  of  the  Alexandrians  and  others  who 
borrowed  from  Greek  philosophy  the  notion  that  Matter  was 
coeval  with  God.  These  truths  at  least  are  of  unspeakable 
importance  to  the  human  jrace  ; — and  now  what  has  exegesis 
to  say  on  this  simple  verse  ? 

i.  We  turn  to  the  Talmud,  and  it  tells  us,  in  accordance 
with  Hillers  rule  of  “  equivalence  ”  that  “  in  the  beginning  ” 
occurs  also  in  Jer.  xxvi.  1,  and  that  we  must  therefore  infer  that 
at  that  period,  “  in  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim, 
Jehovah  intended  to  reduce  the  world  to  chaos  but  relented.1 
It  also  tells  us  2  that  the  Septuagint  translators,  apparently  in 
copying  out  the  law  in  Greek  letters  for  Ptolemy,  transposed 
the  words,  and  put  Elohim  before  BeresMth,  lest  the  Greeks 
should  make  the  mistake  of  supposing  that  Bereshith  was  the 
name  of  a  God  who  created  Elohim  !  Further,  the  Rabbis 
dwell  on  the  dispute  between  the  scholars  of  Shammai,  who 
maintained  from  this  verse  that  the  heavens  were  created  first, 


1  Sanhedrin,  f.  103,  1. 


2  Megilla,  f.  9,  1. 


.35 


Foolish  Exegesis. 

and  the  scholars  of  Hillel,  who  from  Gen.  ii.  4,  declared 
that  the  earth  was  created  first ;  and  they  tell  us  how  after 
endless  discussion  and  quotings  of  counter-texts,  the  Mishnic 
Rabbis  decided  that  the  heaven  and  the  earth  were  both 
created  at  the  same  time.1  They  tell  us,  moreover,  that 
Shamayim ,  “  heaven,”  is  derived  from  eesh-mayim ,  “  fire-water/' 
because  in  the  firmament,  God  mingled  those  two  elements.2 
This  however  does  not  nearly  exhaust  the  spurious  infer¬ 
ences  deduced  by  various  forms  of  Kabbalism  from  the 
first  word  of  Scripture.  Since  by  anagram3  Bereshith 
can  be  read  BethisJiTi ,  it  was  inferred  that  the  world  was 
created  in  September  (Tisri) ;  since,  acrostically,4  the  letters 
of  the  word  give  the  initials  of  the  Hebrew  sentence,  “  God 
saw  that  Israel  would  accept  the  Law,”  the  world  was  created 
for  the  sake  of  the  Law.  Since  the  Hebrew  words,  “  in  the 
beginning  God  created,”  can  be  transposed  by  anagram 
t^nn  K-nn*  D'n$>K,  therefore  the  Pentateuch  is  to  be  regarded 
as  an  allegory.  Turning  to  the  Zohar  we  find  that,  by  further 
methods  of  Kabbalism,  the  words  are  supposed  to  indicate 
that  a  luminous  point  of  fire  created  a  temple,  of  which  the 
name  was  Elohim.  We  come  down  to  Rashi,  so  great  an  in¬ 
terpreter  in  the  eyes  of  his  countrymen,  that  he  was  called 
emphatically  Parshandatha ,  or  the  “  Exegete  of  the  Law,”  5 
and  we  are  told  that  (by  Hillel’s  rule  of  “  equivalence  ”) 
the  lorah  begins  with  this  text,  and  not  with  the  precepts 
of  the  Law,  to  show  that  God  had  given  the  earth  to  the 
Isiaelites ;  since  in  Jer.  ii.  3,  Israel  is  called  “the  beginning 
(nwi)  ol  His  increase.”  Continuing  the  traditions  of 

Kabbalism  we  find  that  even  m  the  epoch  of  the  Renaissance 
Reuchlin  tried  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
from  Gen.  i.  1,  because  acrostically  the  word  son  “  He 
created  ”  involves  the  initial  letters  of  Father,  Son,  and 

1  Chagiga,  f.  12,  1. 

Chiarini,  Theoric  da  Jadaisme,  ii  216. 

3  Known  to  the  Jews  by  the  name  Themoorah.  See  Lect.  IT. 

4  This  process  was  known  as  Notarikon.  See  Lect.  II. 

0  See  Geiger,  HmnD,  Ein  Beitrag  zur  Gesch.  der  Bibel-Exegesc. 

D  2 


36 


Kabbalism. 


Spirit  (a«,  p,  mi);1  and  Pico  of  Mirandola  (who  is 
quoted  with  rapturous  approval  by  Sixtus  Senensis  even  as 
late  as  1593) 2  gets  by  various  permutations  of  the  letters  of 
the  words  the  meaning  that  “  the  Father,  in  the  Son,  and 
through  the  Son,  created  the  beginning  and  the  end  or  peace, 
the  head,  fire,  and  foundation,  by  the  good  covenant  of  a  great 
man.”  3  Pico  thus  persuaded  himself  that  in  the  Qabbala,  there 
was  more  Christianity  than  Judaism.  Lastly,  if  we  might 
have  hoped  that  these  fantastic  vanities  could  not  possibly 
have  survived  the  Middle  Ages  we  are  undeceived  by  open¬ 
ing  one  of  the  most  popular  of  modern  J ewish  commentaries, 
the  Tseennah  Ur e  Amah,  or  “  Go  ye  and  see,”  compiled  by  the 
Eabbi  Jacob  at  Frankfort  in  1693,  but  reprinted  at  Wilna  as 
recently  as  1877,  and  in  daily  use  among  the  Polish  Jews.4 
It  opens  with  the  remark  that  the  Torah  begins  with 
the  letter  Beth  because  that  is  the  first  letter  of  Berakhah 
“  Blessing  ”  )  then  that  the  letter  Blegjh  flew  befoie  the  Holy 
One  with  the  complaint  that  it  had  not  been  chosen ;  and 
was  consoled  by  being  told  that  the  Decalogue  should  begin 
with  Aleph.  It  proceeds  to  inform  us  that  by  Hillel’s  second 
rule,  the  world  was  created  for  the  sake  of  the  Law  be¬ 
cause  that  is  called  the  beginning  of  His  way  ; 5  for  the  sake 
of  the  sacrifices  which  were  offered  in  the  Temple,  which  is 
called  “  Beginning  ”  and  was  created  before  the  world  ; 6  and 
for  the  sake  of  tithes  which  are  also  called  “  Beginning  (i.e. 
first  fruits)  of  corn.”  7  You  will  perhaps  wonder  that  I  should 

1  So  in  “the  stone  (pN)  which  the  builders  rejected”  he  saw  the  Father 

and  the  Son  (p  2K),  and  out  of  “  Righteousness  ”  (Dt6k  p“t¥,  Dan.  ix.  24) 
he  gets  by  Gematria,  Messiah  Jehovah  (HI  IT*  See  Ginsburg,  The 

Kabala,  p.  62 ;  Wolf,  Bibl.  Hebr.  i.  9. 

2  See  Sixt.  Senens.  Bibl.  Sand.  p.  173.  He  calls  this  hermeneutic  folly 

“  luculentissimum  exemplum.” 

3  Among  Christian  Kabbalists,  all  of  whom  more  or  less  approved  of  such 
methods,  may  be  mentioned,  besides  Picus  of  Mirandola  (t  1494),  Raymond 
Lully  (t  1522)  ;  Cornelius  Agrippa  (t  1535)  ;  Van  Helmont  (t  1464)  ;  Fludd 
(f  1637)  ;  Henry  More  (t  1687)  ;  and  others.  See  Ginsburg,  The  Kabbala, 
■p  X 24:* 

4  ni'NV.  The  title  is  taken  from  Cant.  iii.  11.  A  translation  of 
the  Comment  on  Genesis  by  Mr.  P.  J.  Hershon  is  now  in  the  press. 

5  Prov.  viii.  22. 

6  Jer.  xvii.  12.  See  Hershon’s  Talmudic  Miscellany ,  104,  4. 

7  Deut.  xviii.  4. 


Triviality  and  Heresy. 


37 


waste  your  time  by  such  inconceivable  puerilities.  Puerilities, 
yes  !  but  by  referring  to  the  beginning  of  the  Midrash  you 
will  see  that  they  are  but  a  few  specimens  out  of  many  ; 1  and 
they  are  the  direct  result  of  an  extravagantly  superstitious 
estimate  of  the  letter  of  Scripture.  They  neglect  the  essential 
truth  and  majesty  of  the  revelation  and  substitute  for  it  a 
mass  of  ineptitude;— and  yet  they  depend  on  rules  which 
have  been  accepted  among  generations  of  mankind  for  two 
thousand  years,  and  which  are  still  regarded  by  many  as 
constituting  the  exegesis  of  the  Sacred  Book  ! 

ii.  But  this  is  not  all.  The  interpretation  of  this  verse  is 
responsible  not  only  for  triviality  but  for  positive  heresy. 
M  e  turn  to  Philo,  and  we  find  that  he  can  extort  from  it 
the  deadly  error  of  philosophic  dualism.2  Nothing  can  be 
clearer  than  the  meaning  of  Genesis,  that  God  created  all 
things.  It  has  not  a  word  to  say  about  the  eternity  of  matter, 
as  though  matter  were  the  source  of  evil,  and  of  opposition  to 
the  divine  activity.  Philo,  without  the  least  scruple,  perhaps 
with  no  suspicion  that  he  was  mistaken,  makes  Moses  speak 
the  language  of  Plato,  and  Genesis  express  the  thoughts  of 
the  Timaeus.3  It  is  needless  to  dwell  on  the  astonishing 
methods  by  which  he  extracts  from  the  Bible  the  views  of 
the  Stoic  cosmogony  ; 4  but  he  was  partly  influenced  by  the 
LXX.,  which  translates  “  The  earth  was  without  form/’  by 
“  The  earth  was  unseen.”b  This  gave  room  for  the  pretence  that 


x  Midrash  Bereschit  Rabba,  Parascha.  i.  (Wiinsche,  Bibl.  Rcibbinica), 

2  He  derives  this  view  from  Gen.  i.  31.  God  praises  all  that  He  has  made 
(to.  eaurov  Tex^i/ta  tpya),  but  He  does  not  praise  matter  (ttjv  5rnj.Lovpy7]de7aau 
vXrp'),  which  is  lifeless,  corrujhible,  heterogeneous,  discordant.  Quis  Rer.  Div. 
Hacr .  32. 

3  Siegfried,  Pliilo,  pp.  230-235.  Philo  gives  the  same  epithet,  anoios,  alike 
to  chaos  and  to  God.  See  Ewald,  Die  Lehre  der  Bibd  von  Gott,  pp.  238-241. 
Philo’s  Scriptural  proofs  (?)  of  the  ’a-n-cuos  real  &/ uopepos  uA?jare  very  characteristic. 
They  are  derived  (1)  from  the  fact  that  in  Gen.  xxxi.  32-42  Laban  (\evKaap.bs) 
has  the  unmarked  cattle,  which  shows  that  matter  has  no  properties  (Re 
Profug.  2),  and  acquires  its  seal,  or  stamp,  from  the  Logos  (De  Somn.  ii.  6)  ; 
(2)  from  Deut.  xxiii.  1,  because  the  reQXaap.tvos  is  excluded  from  the  Church 
of  God;  and  (3)  from  Gen.  xv.  10,  which  is  applied  to  “ the  cutter-word ” 
dividing  material  and  immaterial  things  ! 

4  There  are  similar  speculations  in  that  part  of  the  Qabbala  which  deals 
with  the  work  of  creation  (rp£^N"Q  nSJTJD). 

5  t)  5e  yrj  -}\v  aoparos  nal  aKcnaaKevaaTos. 


38 


Stumbling  on  the  Threshold. 


the  creation  primarily  intended  was  that  of  an  immaterial 
heaven  and  an  invisible  earth — a  creation  ideal  and  not 


material.1 

iii.  Once  more,  when  we  look  to  the  Fathers  we  find  that 
some  of  them,  in  that  fatal  ignorance  of  the  original  languages 
of  Scripture  which  rendered  so  many  of  their  speculations 
abortive  at  the  outset,  had  the  impression  that  the  first  verse 
of  Genesis  in  the  Hebrew  ran  “ In  the  Son  God  made  the 
world.”  2  Here  indeed  there  was  no  heresy,  for  so  we  are 
expressly  taught  in  other  parts  of  Scripture.3  But  the  critical 
mistake  as  to  the  reading,  and  the  exegetical  mistake  as  to 
the  interpretation,  tended  from  the  first  to  confirm  views 
which  were  radically  untenable  as  to  the  nature  and  relation 


of  the  two  covenants. 

iv.  It  would  not  be  difficult  to  pursue  the  subject  and  to 
show  the  wild  speculations  of  cosmogony  which  have  been 
foisted  into  the  very  opening  accents  of  revelation.  But 
enough  has  been  already  said  to  show  how  small  is  the  title 
of  Exegesis  to  that  infallibility  either  as  to  principles  or 
details  which  it  has  so  often  been  fain  to  claim,  not  only  for 
Scripture  but  for  itself.  It  has  largely  misinterpreted  its  own 
oracles  and,  for  century  after  century,  stumbled  hopelessly 
upon  the  very  threshold  of  jthe  Sacred  Book. 

v.  In  conclusion,  let  us  not  fall  into  the  common  error  of 
fancying  that  such  mistaken  inferences  are  of  little  practical 
importance.  If  they  be  harmless  in  some  instances,  they 
may  be  very  fatal  in  others.  “  The  true  sense  of  Scripture 
is  Scripture  ;  ”  4  but  “  by  giving  it  a  wrong  sense,”  says  Bishop 


1  Philo,  De  Opif.  Mundi,  7.  Philo’s  favourite  comparisons  for  creation 
are  drawn  from  building  and  'planting.  Philo  seems  to  contradict  these 
his  normal  views  in  De  Somn.  i.  13,  where  he  says,  6  ra  Tvavra 

yevpi ]cras  ov  p.6vov  els  rb  ejucpaves  rfyayev  aWa  Kal  a  nporepov  ovk  I)V  eTroiricrep, 
ov  Srguuovp'ybs  p.bvov  aAAa  Kal  avrbs  &v.  On  the  self-contradictions  ol 

Philo,  see  Gfrorer,  Philo,  ii.  2.  Apparent  contradiction  rises  from  his  use  ot 
ret  pd)  ovra  to  imply  the  chaos.  Gfrorer,  i.  330. 

a  Aristo  Pellaeus  (op.  Routh,  Pel.  Sacr.  i.  91).  “  Plerique  existimant, 

says  Jerome  (referring  also  to  Tertullian  and  Hilary)  .  .  .  “in  .Hebraeo 
haberi  In  Filio  Deus  coelum  et  terrain :  quod  falsum  esse  ipsius  rei  veritas 
eomprobat.”  See  Ambrose,  Hexaem.  i.  4.  Basil,  Eexaem.  Horn.  i.  Ter¬ 
tullian,  C.  Praxeam.  Petavius,  De  Off.  Sex.  Dierum.  i.  §  16. 

3  Heb.  i.  2  ;  John  i.  3  ;  Col.  i.  16  ;  1  Cor.  viii.  6.  4  St.  Augustine. 


39 


Crimes  of  Misinterpreters. 

Wordsworth,  “  men  make  God’s  word  become  their  non¬ 
word,  or  even  the  Tempter’s  word,  and  then  Scripture  is 
used  for  our  destruction,  instead  of  making  us  wise  unto 
Salvation.  1  The  misinterpretation  of  Scripture  must  be 
reckoned  among  the  gravest  calamities  of  Christendom.  It 
has  been  the  source  of  crimes  and  errors  which  have  tended 
to  loosen  the  hold  of  the  sacred  writings  upon  the  affection 
and  veneration  of  mankind.  Recall  but  for  a  moment  the 
extent  and  the  deadliness  of  the  evils  for  which  texts  of 
the  Bible  have  been  made  the  command  and  the  excuse. 
W  lid  fanaticism,  dark  superstition,  abject  bondage,  anti- 
nomian  license,  the  burning  hatred  and  unbending  obstinacy 
of  party  spirit  have  they  not  each  in  turn  perverted  the 
bcuptures  to  which  they  appealed  ?  It  is  grievous  to  recall 
how  many  a  bloodstained  period  of  history  might  have  been 
redeemed  from  its  agony  and  desolation  if  men  had  only 
remembered  what  Christ  so  plainly  taught— that  the  Law  of 
the  Old  Testament  was  as  yet  an  imperfect  law,  and  the 
morality  of  the  Old  Testament  as  yet  an  imperfect  and  un¬ 
developed  morality. “  How  often  have  the  sanguinary  sup- 
porteis  of  mistaken  shibboleths  defended  their  outrages  by 
the  injunctions  of  the  Pentateuch  ?  The  infamous  assassina¬ 
tions  of  princes,  or  murderous  plots  against  them,  by  a 
Ravaillac,  a  Jacques  Clement,  a  Balthazar  Gerard,  an  Antony 
Babington,  an  Everard  Digby,  were  preposterously  justified  by 
the  examples  ofEhudand  Jael.3  The  Crusaders,  thinking  that 
they  did  God  service  by  wading  bridle-  deep  in  the  blood  of 
infidels  who  were  often  morally  superior  to  themselves,  justified 

1  Miscellanies,  ii.  17. 

2  Matt-  v-  21-43  (comp.  xv.  1-9  ;  xxiii.  1-23)  ;  Mark  ii.  18-28  :  vii.  2-23  ; 
x-  2-12  ;  Luke  ix.  51-56  ;  xiii.  11-17  ;  John  viii.  1-11. 

3  See  Suarez,  De  Fide,  vi.  4  ;  Mariana,  De  Rege,  p.  69.  There  can  be  little 
doubt,  if  any,  that  Pius  V.  sanctioned  attempts  on  the  life  of  Elizabeth.  For 
the  blasphemies  of  Pope  Sixtus  V.  after  the  murder  of  Henry  III.  by  Clement, 
see  De  Thou  as  quoted  by  Lecky,  Rationalism,  ii.  178  ;  Hallam,  Hist,  of  Europ. 
Lit.  n.  _  39-46.  The  impudent  claim  to  a  right  of  deposition  led  naturally  to 
tyiannicide,  arid  Suarez  says  that  when  St.  Paul  wrote,  “  Let  every  soul  be 
subject  to  the  higher  powers,”  he  did  not  include  the  excommunicated  !  The 
last  attempt  to  murder  the  Emperor  of  Germany  (1884)  was  calmly  defended 
by  the  murderer  from  Old  Testament  examples !  See  Oxenham,  Ethical 
Studies,  pp.  406-413. 


40 


Text-defended  Crimes. 

their  massacres  by  the  exterminating  wars  in  the  Book  of 
Judges,  which  Bishop  Ulfila  wisely  delayed  to  translate  into 
Gothic  because  he  feared  the  effects  they  would  produce  upon 
the  minds  of  his  wild  converts.  Thousands  of  poor  harmless 
women,  maddened  by  torture  into  false  self-accusations,  were 
burnt  to  death  by  Sprenger  as  witches,  on  the  supposed 
authority  of  a  text  in  Leviticus.1  A  crime  so  atrocious  as 
the  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew  was  hailed  by  Pope  Gregory 
XIII.  with  acclamation,  and  paralleled  by  the  zeal  for  God 
of  ancient  heroes.  Texts  were  used  to  crush  the  efforts  of 
national  liberty,  and  to  buttress  the  tyrannies  of  immoral 
despotism.2  The  murder  of  kings  and  passive  obedience 
to  them  were  alike  defended  by  texts.3  The  colossal  usur¬ 
pations  of  the  Papacy  in  the  days  of  its  haughtiest  audacity  were 
maintained  not  only  by  spurious  donations  and  forged  decretals, 
but  by  Boniface  VIII.  on  the  ground  that  the  two  swords  of 
Peter  meant  the  possession  by  Popes  of  temporal  and  spiritual 
dominion ; 4  and  a  century  earlier,  by  Innocent  III.,  on  the 
ground  that  the  Pope  was  intended  by  the  sun  to  rule  the  day, 
and  the  Emperor  only  by  the  moon  to  rule  the  night.5  When 
Innocent  III.  was  giving  to  the  Abbot  of  Citeaux  his  infamous 
advice  to  entrap  the  Count  of  Toulouse  to  his  ruin,  he  wrote, 
“We  advise  you,  according  to  the  precepts  of  the  Apostle,  to  use 
cunning  in  your  dealings  with  the  Count  of  Toulouse, 


A  Sprenger,  author  of  the  Malleus  Maleficarum,  was  appointed  Inquisitor 
by  Innocent  VIII.  in  1484.  Sir  Matthew  Hale,  as  every  one  knows,  in  1665 
sent  two  witches  to  be  executed  on  Scripture  authority ;  and  five  are  said  to 
have  been  hanged  at  Northampton  as  late  as  1712  (Parr’s  Works,  iv.  182)  ;  and 
in  Spain  as  late  as  1781  (Buckle,  Mist,  of  Civilis.  i.  334)  ;  and  in  Switzerland 
in  1782  (Michelet’s  La  Sorciere,  p.  425).  Even  Wesley  said,  “  The  giving  up 
witchcraft  is  giving  up  the  Bible.”  So  absurd  a  statement  would  practically 
bind  us  to  everything  which  was  ignorantly  believed  3,500  years  ago.  See 
Lecky,  Hist,  of  Rationalism,  i.  1-150. 

2  Passive  obedience  was  taught  by  theologians  for  centuries  from  the  days  of 
the  early  Fathers  down  to  the  seventeenth  century.  Grotius,  Dc  Jure  Belle 
et  Pads,  i.  4.  A  contemporary  tells  us  that  in  the  English  Church  after  the 
Restoration  the  name  of  Charles  I.  was  referred  to  ten  times  more  often  than 
that  of  Christ. 

3  Sec  especially  Mariana,  Be  Rege  et  Regis  Institutione,  1599. 

4  See  the  authorities  quoted  in  Hallam,  Middle  Ages,  ii.  26,  29.  Words¬ 
worth,  Miscellanies,  ii.  18. 

5  Muratori,  Script.  Rer.  Ital.  iii.  448.  Decret.  Greg.  ix.  lib.  i.  tit.  33. 


41 


Text-defended  Crimes. 

treating  him  with  a  wise  dissimulation,  that  the  other 
heretics  may  be  more  easily  destroyed.”  1  Even  the  Spanish 
Inquisition — that  infamy  of  Christendom — appealed  to  Scrip¬ 
tural  warrant  for  the  right  to  immolate  its  holocausts  of 
victims,2 3 4  and  the  blood-stained  Alva  received  from  the  Pope 
a  jewelled  sword  with  the  inscription,  Accipe  sanctum  gladium, 
munus  a  Deo .  In  the  days  of  her  persecution  the  Fathers  of 
the  Church  had  taught  mankind  that  “  force  is  hateful  to  God;”s 
but,  in  the  days  of  her  despotism,  not  only  cursings  and  ana¬ 
themas,  but  the  axes,  the  stakes,  the  gibbets,  the  thumbscrews, 
the  racks,  and  all  the  instruments  of  torture  kept  in  the  dun¬ 
geons  of  priests  to  deprave  the  heart  of  nations,  and  to  horrify 
the  world,  were  defended  by  scraps  of  texts  and  shreds  of 
metaphor  from  the  mercy-breathing  parables  of  Christ.  Texts 
have  been  used  a  thousand  times  to  bar  the  progress  of  science, 
to  beat  down  the  sword  of  freedom,  to  destroy  the  benefactors  of 
humanity,  to  silence  the  voice  of  truth.  The  gospel  of  peace, 
the  gospel  of  knowledge,  the  gospel  of  progress,  has  been 
desecrated  into  the  armoury  of  fanaticism,  and  the  stumbling- 
block  of  philosophy.  The  gospel  of  light  and  love  has  been 
used  to  glorify  the  madness  of  the  self-torturer,  to  kindle  the 
faggot  of  the  inquisitor,  and  to  rivet  the  fetters  of  the  slave. 
Who  can  deny  these  things  unless  he  thinks  to  please  God 
by  going  before  Him  with  a  lie  in  his  right  hand  ?  Even 
the  poets  of  the  world — poets  the  clearest  in  universal  insight, 
and  the  deepest  in  spiritual  emotion — have  noticed  and 
deplored  them.  Who  does  not  feel  the  force  of  the 


1  “  It  is  remarkable  that  when  the  Roman  pontiffs,  especially  Gregory  YIT. 
and  Innocent  III.,  had  any  pernicious  design  to  recommend,  they  were  lavish 
in  their  appeals  to  Scripture.” — Taylor. 

2  “In  conclusion  the  Emperor  ordered  the  Inquisition  to  make  it  known 
that  they  were  not  doing  their  own  work,  but  the  work  of  Christ.”  What 
nameless  horror  this  “work  of  Christ”  involved  may  be  read  in  Motley's 
Dutch  Republic,  i.  288. 

3  “  Nec  religionis  est  cogere  religionem”  Tertullian  (Ad  Scapulam,  2), 
Rcligio  cogi  non  potest.  Lactantius  (Div.  Inst.  vi.  19).  The  old  rule  was 
Bia  e’xfyj&j/  @ei f. 

4  Lord  Bacon  attributes  the  paralysis  of  science  chiefly  to  the  incubus  of 
the  theological  system.  See  Novum  Organum,  i.  §  lxv.,  and  there  is  a  similar 
remark  by  Kepler  in  Be  Martis  Stella. 


42  Wresting  the  Scriptures. 


hackneyed  lines  —  hackneyed  from  their  fatal  truthful¬ 
ness — 

“The  devil  can  quote  Scripture  for  his  purpose  ”  ? 


or, 


or, 


or 


“In  religion 

What  damned  error  hut  some  sober  brow 
Will  bless  it  and  approve  it  with  a  text, 
Hiding  the  grossness  with  fair  ornament  ?  ” 

“  Having  waste  ground  enough, 
Shall  we  desire  to  raze  the  sanctuary, 

And  pitch  our  evils  there  ?  ” 

“  Crime  was  ne’er  so  black 
As  ghostly  cheer  and  pious  thanks  to  lack. 
Satan  is  modest.  At  Heaven’s  door  he  lays 
His  evil  offspring,  and  in  Scripture  phrases 
And  saintly  posture  gives  to  God  the  praise 
And  honour  of  his  monstrous  progeny  ”  ? 


How  then  is  it  possible  better  to  maintain  the  divine 
authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  than  by  pointing  out,  and  by 
forsaking,  the  errors  whereby  men  have  so  often  wrested 
them  alike  to  their  own  destruction  and  to  the  ruin  and 
misery  of  their  fellow  men  ?  How  can  we  better  prove  their 
sacredness  and  majesty  than  by  showing  that  in  spite  of  such 
long  centuries  of  grievous  misinterpretation  they  still  remain 
when  rightly  used,  a  light  unto  our  feet  and  a  lamp  unto  our 
paths  ?  How  can  we  render  them  a  loftier  service  than  by 
endeavouring  to  set  them  free  from  false  dogmas  which  have 
corrupted  their  whole  interpretation  with  dishonest  casuistry, 
and  have  thereby  shaken  to  its  very  centre  the  religious  faith  of 
thousands  alike  of  the  most  ignorant  and  of  the  most  culti¬ 
vated  of  mankind  ?  And  think  not  that  I  am  pointing  some 
mere  conventional  moral  when  I  add  that  there  is  one  way  in 
which  the'  very  humblest  of  us  may  prove  how  inviolable  is 
the  truth,  how  infinite  the  preciousness  of  the  lessons  which 
we  can  learn  from  Scripture.  It  is  by  living  in  simple  and 
faithful  obedience  to  its  highest  and  its  final  teaching. 
On  that  point  at  least,  amid  multitudes  of  imperfections, 
the  greatest  and  holiest  interpreters  have  ever  been  at  one. 
“  Scripturae  scopus  est,”  says  St.  Augustine,  “  dilectio  Dei  et 


4:3 


True  Use  of  Scripture . 

m  ordine  ad  Deum  aliorum  hominum .” 1  “  The  fruit  of  sacred 

Scripture/’  said  Bonaventura,  “  is  fulness  of  felicity.”  2  “  Do 

not  hear  or  read  it,”  says  Bishop  Jeremy  Taylor,  “for  any 
other  end  but  to  become  better  in  your  daily  walk,  and  to  be 
instructed  in  every  good  work,  and  to  increase  in  the  love 
and  service  of  God.”  3 — And  this  may  God  grant  us  all  for 
His  Son’s  sake  ! 

1  Aug.  De  Gen.  ad  Literam. 

2  Bonaventura,  Breviloq.  Prooem.  So  Abelard  says  that  the  object  of  the 
study  of  Scripture  is  “moram  instructio  and  John  of  Salisbury,  “ut  homo 
seipso  melior  jugi ter  fiat.”  ( Polycrat .  vii.  10.) 

3  Jer.  Taylor,  Holy  Living,  iv. 


Atari  Kal  vpeis  napa (3aivere  rrjv  evro\i)v  rov  0eov  did  rrjv  irapddocriv  vpwv  ; 
O  yap  Qeos  evereikaro  Xeycav  .  .  .  ‘Ypeis  de  Xeyere  .  .  .  K«i  rjKvpicaare  rpv 
evroXrjv  rod  Oeav  did  rrjv  napadocriv  vpcov. — MaTT.  XV.  3 — 6. 

BAe7rere  prj  ris  vpas  ecrrai  6  crv^aycoycov  did  .  .  .  k evr/s  aTvdrrji  Kara  rrjv 
napadocriv  rcov  dvOpd>na>v. — COL.  ii.  8. 


LECTURE  II. 


RABBINIC  EXEGESIS. 

“  Not  giving  heed  to  Jewish  fables,  and  commandments  of  men  who  turn 

away  from  the  truth.”  1 — Tit.  i.  14. 

A  BOOK  needs  for  the  most  part  but  little  explana¬ 
tion  in  the  age  to  which  it  is  addressed.  It  may  be 
assumed  as  a  ‘fundamental  principle  that  an  author  writes 
for  the  purpose  of  being  understood.  His  thoughts,  his 
allusions,  his  special  opinions  are  influenced  by  the  times 
in  which  he  lives,  and  are  clearer  to  his  contemporaries  than 
they  can  be  to  men  of  other  epochs.  But  as  the  centuries 
advance  books  require  an  interpreter  in  proportion  to  their 
depth  and  sacredness.  Schools  of  expositors  were  soon  needed 
to  explain  the  Vedas2  and  the  Koran.3  Chairs  were  founded 
to  comment  upon  the  Divina  Commedia  of  Dante  as  early  as 
fifty  years  after  his  death,4  and  the  existing  commentaries  on 
that  immortal  vision  are  now  nearly  thirteen  hundred  in 
number. 

The  interpretation  of  Scripture  can  hardly  be  said  to  have 
begun  before  the  days  of  Ezra.  Indeed  up  to  his  days  we 


1  o v  TTpocrexovres  ’iouSaircois  juvOois  real  ivroAais  avOponrcvu  aTrocTTpecpo/aeuccv 

<xAt) Oeiav.  Comp,  verse  10.  E lal  yap  ttoAAoI  .  .  .  fiaraioA^yoi  nal  (ppeuaTraraL, 

pLaAiara  oi  e/c  neptTo/j.rjs. 

2  See  Muir,  Sanscrit  Texts ,  iii.  pp.  138-179. 

3  The  Koran  has  its  schools  of  expositors.  The  mystics  ( Karmathai )  ;  the 
Rationalists  ( Muatasilitcn )  ;  the  scholastic  students  (MutekellemHn).  Like  the 
Sopherirn,  the  Sunnites  maintain  the  existence  of  Tradition  ( Sunna )  ;  and, 
like  the  Karaites,  the  Schiites  deny  it.  See  Etheridge,  Hcbr.  Lit.  p.  295. 

4  The  republic  of  Florence  endowed  a  Lectureship  in  1373. 


48  Scripture  Principles. 

are  unable  to  say  how  much  of  the  Old  Testament  in  its 
present  form  was  known  to  the  mass  of  the  Jewish  people. 
The  Mosaic  system  from  a  very  early  period  seems  not  only  to 
have  fallen  into  desuetude,  but  even  to  have  been  so  utterly 
forgotten  that  the  discovery  of  the  “  Book  of  the  Law  ”  by  the 
high  priest  Hilkiah  in  the  reign  of  Josiah  produced  a  burst 
of  astonishment.1  During  the  Exile  it  again  fell  into  com¬ 
plete  abeyance.  In  the  days  of  Nehemiah  its  main  provisions 
were  so  little  observed  that  their  simple  rehearsal  woke 
minoded  feelings  of  amazement  and  remorse.2 

Yet  though  we  do  not  find  in  the  Old  Testament  anything 
which  can  be  strictly  called  commentary,  we  do  find,  both 
in  the  Psalms  and  in  the  Prophets,  the  enunciation  of 
principles  so  rich  and  broad  that,  had  they  been  duly  taken 
to  heart,  nine-tenths  of  the  labours  of  the  national  teachers 
might  have  been  saved  from  abortiveness.  For  those  labours 
were  based  on  the  two  assumptions  that  every  word  in  the 
Five  Books  of  Moses  was  supernaturally  communicated, 
and  that  every  tittle  of  Levifcical  formalism  was  of  infinite 
importance.  Nothing  can  be  clearer  than  that  the  free 
attitude  of  the  earlier  Prophets  towards  the  Law  would  have 
been  impossible  if  they  had  accepted  either  hypothesis. 
Had  they  done  so,  they  too  might  have  sunk  to  the  level  of 
Priests  and  Scribes,  and  could  never  have  been  the  inspired 
teachers  of  mankind.  Moses  is  only  mentioned  three  times 
in  all  the  Prophets.3  The  word  Sinai  does  not  once  occur 
in  them,  nor  the  word  High  Priest.  They  scarcely  show 
a  trace  of  any  influence  from  the  Levitic  system.  To  the 
official  Priesthood  their  general  attitude  is  one  of  strong 
antagonism,  and  so  far  from  bowing  to  sacerdotal  authority 
they  rebuke  these  Temple  ministers  with  scathing  satire 

1  2  Kings  xxii.  8-15;  xxiii.  1-3. 

2  Nehem.  viii.  ix.  xiii. 

3  Is.  lxiii.  12  ;  Jer.  xv.  1  ;  Mai.  iv.  4.  It  is  only  in  the  third  passage  that 
“  the  law  of  Moses”  is  mentioned.  Other  allusions  to  “  the  law  of  the  Lord” 
are  general,  as  Amos  ii.  4,  Hos.  iv.  6,  viii.  1  ;  Jer.  ix.  13,  &c.,  Zeph.  iii.  4. 
A  written  law  is  referred  to  in  Hos.  viii.  12,  Jer.  viii.  8.  See  on  the  wholo 
subject  Smend,  Ueber  die  Genesis  d.  Judenthums  ( Zeitschr .  /.  alttest.  Wisscnsh* 
1882). 


Spirit  of  the  Prophets. 
and  unmeasured  invective.1  But  what  is 


is  most  remarkable 


49 


is  their  varied  and  magnificent  protest  against  the  spirit  of 
legalism,  which  substitutes  outward  ordinances  for  genuine 
holiness.  In  urging  this  theme  Samuel,  David,  °Isaiah 
Jeremiah,  Amos,  Micah,  Hosea,  Habakkuk,  use  language 
so  sweeping  in  its  universality,  that  they  might  have  seemed 
to  be  filled  with  a  spirit  not  only  of  indifference,  but  even  of 
contempt  for  that  yoke  of  ritual  bondage  which  it  required  a 
courage  as  high  as  that  of.  St.  Peter,  so  many  centuries  after¬ 
wards,  to  declare  that  neither  they  nor  their  fathers  had  been 
able  to  bear.2  “Behold  to  obey,”  said  Samuel,  “is  better 
than  sacrifice,  and  to  hearken  than  the  fat  of  rams.”  3  “  Thou 
desirest  not  sacrifice,”  says  David,  “else  would  I  give  it  thee; 
but  thou  delightest  not  in  burnt  offerings.”4  “  To  what  pur¬ 
pose  is  the  multitude  of  your  sacrifices  unto  me  ?  saith  the 
Lord,”  is  the  message  of  Isaiah.3  “  I  hate,  I  despise  your  feast- 
days,  is  the  word  of  the  Lord  through  Amos.6  “  I  spake 
not  unto  your  fathers  concerning  burnt  offerings  and 
sacrifices,”  says  the  word  of  the  Lord  in  Jeremiah;  “but 
this  thing  I  commanded  them,  saying,  Obey  my  voice.”7 
“What  doth  the  Lord  require  of  thee,”  asks  Micah,  “but 
to  do  justice,  and  to  love  mercy,  and  to  walk  humbly  with 
thy  God  ? ” s  “I  desired  mercy  and  not  sacrifice,”  is  the 
terse  message  of  Hosea.  “  I  gave  them  also  statutes  that 
were  not  good,  and  judgments  whereby  they  should  not 
live,  9  was  the  bold  utterance  which,  however  interpreted, 
almost  cost  the  prophet  Ezekiel  his  place  in  the  Jewish 
canon.10  Such  thoughts  were  the  most  direct  antithesis  to 
tiiG  views  and  methods  of  the  Scribes. 


2  Acts  xv.  10. 
5  Is.  i.  11. 

8  Mic.  vi.  6  -9. 


3  1  Sam.  xv.  22. 
6  Amos  v.  21,  22. 


4  Ps.  li.  16. 

7  Jer.  vii.  22,  23. 


50 


The  Laic  about  Fringes. 


Theoretically  indeed  these  Prophetic  teachings  were  always 
admitted.  They  were  recognised  in  the  Pentateuch  itse  . 
When  our  Lord  answered  the  question  of  the  Scribes  y  sum 
ming  up  the  Law  in  two  great  commandments,  some  of  them  at 
least  were  able  to  appreciate  the  glorious  truth  and  insight  of 
the  answer2  Nay,  if  there  be  not  a  wilful  falsification  m  the 
Talmudic  records-if  the  later  Rabbis  did  not  in  this  instance 
as  in  many  others  light  their  torches  at  the  sun  which  yet 
they  cursed — Hillel  himself  had  in  a  mutilated  form  given 
half  of  the  same  answer.  Shammai  drove  away  wit  a 
builder’s  rod  the  rude  Gentile  who  promised  to  become  a 
proselyte  if  he  would  teach  him  the  whole  Law  while,  he 
stood  on  one  leg,  but  Hillel  converted  him  by  answering, 

“  What  is  hateful  to  thyself  do  not  to  thy  neighbour..  is 
is  the  whole  law;  all  the  rest  is  but  comment  and  fringe. 

But  if  Hillel  ever  used  those  words  it  was  one  of  the  many 
proofs  that  he  could  breathe  in  a  purer  atmosphere  than,  had 
been  reached  by  his  brother  Rabbis.  .  They  had  proclaimed 
that  there  were  613  precepts,  of  which  some  were  lig 
and  some  were  “  heavy.” 4  It  therefore  became  a  frequent 
question  among  them,  “  which  was  the  first  and  great  com¬ 
mandment?”  In  the  tract  Shabbath  we  are  told  that  t  e 
most  important  law  was  the  one  about  fringes,  so  that,  on  one 
occasion,  R.  Rabba,  having  accidentally  stepped  on  and  torn 
his  fringe  while  mounting  a  ladder,  would  not  move  unti  1 
had  been  mended.  How  little  the  Jews  are  ashamed  of  a 
iudo-ment  so  diametrically  opposed  to  the  opinions  of  their 
mightiest  Prophets  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  no  less  a  person 
than  Rashi,  even  in  the  twelfth  century,  is  still  bold  enoug  1 
to  repeat  that  the  Law  about  fringes  is  the  first  and  great 


f.  32.  1. 

2  Mart  Yii  ^32-34  kglL  ehrev  avrai  8  ypaixfiarevs  KaXws,  5i8c£<r/ca\e,  k.t.A. 

3  Shabbath  f  31  1.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  ‘‘neighbour  usua  y 
meant ’  “  Jew!”  Baba  Qamma.  f.  38,  1,  Amsterd.  ed.  Hershon,  Genesis, 

P*  3  This  was  deduced  from  Gematria,  because  STM}  =  611  which  with  “I 
am”  and  “thou  shalt  have  no  other  -  613.  Makkoth,  f.  23,  . 


51 


The  Founder  of  Judaism. 


commandment.1  Such  was  the  difference  between  the  spirit 
of  the  Prophets  and  that  ol  the  Rabbis,  in  whose  days  “there 
was  no  Prophet  more  !  ” 

I*  ^ie  question  may  well  be  asked  how  a  change  so 
immense  was  effected,  and  to  whose  influence  it  was  due. 
Vast  revolutions  are  usually  brought  about  by  the  genius  of 
one  man  who  concentrates  in  his  own  person  the  energy  of 
some  new  impulse,  and,  for  good  or  for  evil,  pours  its  tidal 
wave  over  coming  generations  with  a  force  which,  centuries 
afterwards,  is  still  unspent. 

The  founder  of  Judaism  as  distinct  from  Mosaism;2  he 
who  transformed  the  theocracy  into  a  nomocracy ; 3  he  who 
changed  Israel  from  a  people  into  a  church,  and  from  a 
political  power  into  an  international  sect;  he  who  esta¬ 
blished  a  system  under  which  Prophecy  ceased  because  it 
was  no  longer  esteemed  a  necessity;4  he  who  based  the 
influence  of  the  Scribe5  on  so  strong  a  foundation  that  it 


1  Itashi  onXum.  xv.  39  (following  tlie  Talmud,  Shevuoth,  f.  29,  1)  proved 
his  point  by  Gematna  (see  infra,  p.  98),  because  the  numerical  value  of  Tsitsith 
(  fringes  )  is  600,  and  this  with  the  eight  threads  and  the  five  knots  =  613 
the  number  of  “all  the  commandments  of  the  Lord.”  hum.  xv.  39.  A  Jew 
vho  neglected  to  wear  the  Tsitsith  was  excommunicated.  (Pesacliim  f  113  9) 
and  regarded  as  a  churl  (am  ha-arets,  Berakhoth,  f.  47,  2),  since  he  transgressed 
,llve  P°sitl™  commands  (Menachoth,  f.  44,  1).  Any  one  who  wore  them  would 
have  2,800  slaves  to  wait  on  him  (Shabbath,  f.  32,  2).  Rashi  proves  this  from 
Zecii  vm.  23,  because  there  are  four  fringes,  and  if  10  men  of  the  70  nations 

pei260°ld°f  t  lem’  70  X  10  X  4  =  2’800-  See  Hershon,  Talm.  Miscellany, 

2  Weill,  Lc  Judaisme,  i.  58. 

*  ^ :eber»  AltfVn-  Theol.  i.  Hence  it  is  HilleTs  highest  honour  to  be  called 
a  scholar  of  Lzra,  who  revived  the  law.  Sanhedrin,  f.  11,  1.  See  Ezra 
x.  7-8.  Jost,  Gesch.  d.  Israclitcn,  iii.  Ewald  (Hist,  of  Isr.  v.  53)  prefers  the 
term  Hagiocracy,  i.e.  the  belief  in  a  Holy  Land,  a  Holy  People,  &c. 

r  +1SeeoE^a  ’  Ecclus-  xxxix-  L  “Dignity”  is  the  special  prerogative 

of  the  Scrioe.  Id.  x.  5  ;  Matt,  xxiii.  7,  8  ;  Mark  x.  51  ;  John  xx.  16 

PjPflg  Tb\wl3e  lllan  (j-e*  the  ^bbi)  is  greater  than  the  Prophet  ’’ 

^  D:jn\Babf  Bathra>  f-  12>  !)•  In  Sanhedrin,  11,  the  Shekhinah, 
aUer  the  last  prophet  had  died,  rested  on  Hillel,  and  then  on  Samuel  the 
Little.  It  is  said  that  at  the  destruction  of  the  Temple  Prophecy  was  taken 
from  the  Prophets  and  given  to  the  Wise.  Baba  Bathra,  18  c.  After  the 
death  ,of  Malachi  the  Jews  had  only  the  rare  and  dubious  “  Daughter  of  a 
\  oice  (Bath  Qol),  on  which  see  Jos.  Antt.  xii.  10,  3.  ;  Yoma,  f.  9,  2  ;  Jer. 
Sota,  ix.  16.  It  is  mentioned  in  the  Jerusalem  Targum  on  Deut.  xxviii.  15. 

See  the  Talmudic  references  in  Herzfeld,  Gesch.  d.  V.  Isr.  i.  126.  The 
Rabbis  derived  sopherim  from  sophar,  “to  number,”  because  they  numbered 
the  letters  of  the  sacred  books.  Qiddushin,  f.  30,  1.  This  is  a  mistake 
(Jost,  Gesch,  d.  Isr.  m.  119),  though  stated  by  Elias  Levita.  The  Scribes  did, 
however,  number  the  letters,  and  found  that  the  )  in  Lev.  ix.  42  is  the  middle 

E  2 


52 


Ezra. 


overshadowed  the  authority  of  Princes,1  and  caused  even  e 
influence  of  Priests  to  dwindle  into  gradual  insignificance 
he  who  was  the  first  to  inaugurate  the  Midrash,3  and  the 
Targum;4  he  who  was  the  traditional  propoun  er  o  ie 
decisions'  which  form  the  earliest  nucleus  of  the  Mishna ; 
the  first  author  of  liturgical  forms ; 6  the  first  authorise!- 
of  local  synagogues  ; 7  the  first  collector  and  editor  of  the 
Canon  • 8  the  initiator  of  the  long  subsequent  toil  ot  the 
Massorets;  the  historic  originator  of  the  Oral  Law— that 
man  was  Ezra,  the  priestly  Scribe.  He  carried  on  the  silent 
revolution  in  Jewish  conceptions  of  which  the  last  eight 
chapters  of  the  book  of  Ezekiel  are  the  indication,  and  which 
find  expression  also  in  the  Books  of  Chronicles.  In  Eze  cie 
we  see  the  gradual  passing  of  the  Prophet  into  the  Scribe,  in 
whom  Prophecy  finds  it  necessary  to  take  the  form  of  Law, 
and  who  for  glowing  ideal  visions  furnishes  a  legislative 
code 10  The  Sopherim,,  or  Scribes,  lasted  for  lo8  years, 
and  were  succeeded  by  the  CMhamim,  or  the  Wise 


letter  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  the  V  in  Ps.  lxxx.  11  the  middle  letter  of  the 

^ffiilel  was  the  first  P.abbi  to  be  called  a  Prihoe  (Nasi) ;  Shabbath  fi  34, 
l  f'nmr,  Berakhoth  f  28,  1  ;  Schiirer,  Neut.  Zeitgeseh.  464  ,  Wobei,  124. 

'a  "The  wise”  are  called  “  Priests,"  though  most  °f  them  were  laym|mi 
Nedarim,  40.  See  Shemoth  Rabba.  o.  34,  and  Sifra.  f.  13,  2,  where  Bless 

&■;  i  r^L  si:  ; 

explain,”  is  first  found  in  Ezra  vu.  10  ;  Nederam,  f.  n.  37  ,  W  elll,  l.  60. 

*  £  SS  oSrivial  nature  are  .attributed  to  Ezra  in  Baba 
„  p  no  q  ci zap  Wnplmpr  Antin.  Ebr.  n.  689.  home  or  me  so  eaiieu 

SfoiV  le-Mosheh  mi-Sinai  certainly  came  from  the  school  of  Ezra. 

Hs1  Berakhoth,  f.  33  ;  Megilla,  f.  10  ;  Maimonides,  Tad  Uachazaka,  L.  1.  art. 
iv.  ;  Weill  (i.  69)  mentions  the  actual  prayers. 

1  Babf  Battoa  f  if-'  Megilla,  f.  3  ;  Weill,  i.  71.  The  language  used  about 
Ezra®“n  the  Canon  Startling..  We  are  told, h^ud  says  thS 

panions  re-wrote  the  Law  (2  Esdras,  dt.  21;  ibTnid  Tlstameit  ‘ 

and  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue  wrote  the  Old  Testame  . 

9  Tt  will  be  seen  at  a  glance  that  the  Books  ot  Chronicles  are  more  an 
ecclesiastical  than  a  national  history,  and  that  they  adopt 

the  Levitic  Law.  It  has  been  thought  that  1  Kings,  .  >  1 c 

the  LXX.,  shows  traces  of  Levitic  glosses. 

10  See  Prof.  J.  E.  Carpenter,  Mod.  Revieiv,  Jan.  1884. 


Rabbinic  Schools. 


53 


and  they  by  the  Tanaim ,  or  “  Teachers.”  After  the  lapse 
of  another  500  years  the  Tanaim  were  succeeded  by  the 
Amoraim,  or  Discourses,  for  300  years;  and  they  by 
the  Seboraim,  or  Investigators,  and  Gaonim,  or  “  Excellent,” 
for  another  400  years,  down  to  the  thirteenth  century  of  our 
era.1  Throughout  every  one  of  these  Rabbinic  bodies,  from 
the  foundation  of  legalism  to  the  close  of  the  schools  of  the 
East  and  West,2  and  indeed  for  twenty-two  centuries  the  im¬ 
pulse  given  by  Ezra  continued  to  sway  the  course  of  Jewish 
thought.  He  was  looked  upon  as  a  second  Moses.  “  He 
would  have  been  worthy,”  said  Rabbi  Jose,  “  to  become  the 
legislator  of  Israel  had  not  Moses  anticipated  him.”  3  Legends 
soon  began  to  cling  about  his  name  like  clouds  about  a 
mountain  peak,4  and  even  in  the  Koran  he  appears  as  Ozair, 
clothed  with  immortal  youth. 

And  yet  by  what  a  gulf  of  inferiority  is  Ezra  separated 
from  the  mighty  Prophets  of  his  race  !  It  is  a  gulf  like  that 
which  separates  the  Bible  from  the  Talmud ;  the  Decalogue 

1  See  Etheridge,  Hebrew  Lit.  passim  ;  Otho,  Historia  Doctorum  Mithni- 
corum,  pp.  13-32  ;  Herzog,  s.v.  Rabbinismus.  Gratz  divides  the  epochs  some¬ 
what  differently  ( Gesch .  d.  Juden ,  iv.  9) : 

The  Sopherim,  B.c.  458  to  B.  c.  320.  Erom  Ezra  to  the  death  of  Simon 
the  Just. 

The  Chakhamim,  b.c.  323  to  a.d.  13.  From  Simon  to  the  death  of 
Hillei. 

The  Tanaim,  a.d.  13  to  a.d.  190.  From  Hillei  to  the  death  of 
Rabbi. 

The  Amoraim,  a.d.  190  to  a.d.  498.  From  Rabbi  to  R.  Ashi. 

The  Seboraim,  a.d.  498  to  a.d.  689.  From  Jose  to  Rav  Shishana. 

The  Gaonin,  a.d.  689  to  a.d.  900. 

The  Gaonim  of  Sora  were  contemporary  with  the  Rabbanim  of  Pumbaditha. 
The  most  celebrated  Gaon  was  R.  Saadiah,  a.d.  928. 

2  The  Rabbinic  schools  in  the  East  were  closed  in  1040.  Under  the  Sopberim 
Mosaism  was  renewed  ;  schools  were  founded ;  Targums  began  ;  the  scholar 
became  powerful.  Under  the  Chakhamim  tradition  was  developed,  and  there 
grew  up  the  rival  schools  of  Pharisees  and  Sadducees.  The  Tanaim  ended 
their  labours  by  the  publication  of  the  Mishna.  The  Amoraim  completed  the 
Gemara. 

3  Sanhedrin,  f.  22  ;  Tosefta,  4,  ib.  ;  Jer.  Megilla,  i.  9  ;  Weill,  Lc  Judaisme, 
i.  The  proof  itself  depends  on  the  futile  Hillelite  methods  of  “  equivalence.” 
Moses  “  ascended  ”  to  receive  the  law  (Ex.  xiv.  3);  Ezra  “  ascended  ”  from 
Babylon  (Ezra  vii.  6).  Therefore  the  one  was  as  worthy  as  the  other. 

4  In  the  Targuin,  on  Mai.  i.  1,  and  in  Megilla,  f.  15,  1,  he  is  identified 
with  Malachi.  For  other  legends,  seethe  books  of  Esdras  ;  4  Esdras  viii.  20  ; 
x.  57-59  ;  xiv.  9  ;  Koran,  Sura.  ix.  31  ;  Ewald,  Hist,  of  Isr.  vi.  164  ;  D’Her- 
belot,  Bill.  Orient,  s.v.  Ozair,  iii.  89. 


54 


The  Oral  Law. 


from  the  Halakha;  the  religion  of  righteousness  from  the 
religiosity  of  Tradition ;  the  freedom  of  spiritual  enlighten¬ 
ment  from  the  pettiness  of  ceremonialism  ;  the  holiness  of 
the  heart  from  the  outward  holiness  of  Levitic  purifications. 

But  if  a  man  is  to  be  counted  great  from  the  extent  and 
vitality  of  his  influence  then  Ezra  was  great  indeed.  The 
restoration  of  the  Law,1  and  the  terrible  sternness  of  the  day 
on  which,  in  inferential  accordance  with  its  precepts,  one 
hundred  and  thirteen  marriages  were  ruthlessly  annulled, 
perhaps  saved  the  Jewish  nationality  from  extinction.2  That 
tremendous  measure  inaugurated  an  era  of  legal  strictness 
such  as  had  never  before  been  known.  The  establishment 
of  synagogues  trained  the  people  in  a  worship  largely  in¬ 
dependent  of  a  centralised  hierarchy.3  It  taught  them  how 
they  might  draw  near  to  God  in  prayer  without  the  incessant 
intervention  of  sacerdotal  functions.  It  secured  the  reading 
of  Moses  every  Sabbath  day.4  It  necessitated  the  explanation 
of  Scripture  in  a  tongue  understated  of  the  people. 
It  extinguished  for  ever  the  temptation  to  Polytheism. 
In  crisis  after  crisis,  in  struggle  after  struggle,  it  was 
sufficiently  potent  to  save  the  Jews  from  national  oblit¬ 
eration.  Their  love  for  the  Oral  Law  strengthened  them 
to  withstand  the  hatred  and  intrigues  of  Samaritans 
and  Ammonites.  It  enabled  them  to  pacify  the  wrath  of 
Alexander.  It  inspired  them  with  an  indomitable  pride  in 
their  own  destinies 5  amid  the  rivalries  of  Seleucids  and 

1  Circumstances  like  that  mentioned  in  Ezra  iii.  4,  can  only  be  accounted 
for  by  the  fact  that  Hebrew  had  practically  become  a  dead  language. 

2  Ezra  ix.  x.  ;  1  Esdras  viii.  ix.  Among  those  whose  marriages  were  thus 
annulled  were  four  of  the  highest  priests,  thirteen  other  priests,  ten  Levites, 
aud  eighty-six  laymen.  How  little  strictness  had  been  attached  to  the  rule  is 
shown  by  the  Ethiopian  wife  of  Moses,  the  marriage  of  Salmon  with  Rahab, 
of  Boaz  with  Ruth,  of  Solomon  with  Pharaoh’s  daughter,  &c.  David  the 
darling  hero  of  the  nation  was  the  near  descendant  of  a  Moabitess,  and  the 
marriage  from  which  he  sprang  is  made  the  subject  of  a  tender  and  laudatory 
idyl. 

3  Jost,  Gesch.  d.  Israel .,  iii.  51. 

4  Acts  xv.  28.  Philo  speaks  in  terms  of  warm  praise  of  the  synagogues 
and  proseuchae.  Vit.  Mos.  p.  168  (ed.  Mangey).  “  When  the  Law  had  been 
forgotten  by  Israel,  Ezra  came  from  Babylon,  and  re-established  it.”  Sukka, 
f.  20,  1-4  ;  Esdras.  xiv.  21-27. 

5  Weill,  i.  97.  In  Megilla,  f.  12,  the  words  of  Moses  (Lev.  xxvi.  44)  are 
thus  explained  :  “I  will  not  reject  them  in  the  Babylonish  captivity,  when 


Vitality  of  Judaism.  55 

Ptolemies.1  It  defied  the  bloody  persecution  of  Antiochus. 
It  prevented  the  Maccabees  from  overshadowing  the  Pharisees 
by  a  secular  dynasty.2  It  resisted  the  subtle  fascination  of 
Greece,  and  could  not  be  crushed  even  by  the  iron  arm  of 
Rome.  It  abased  the  pride  of  the  Herods  and  the  splendour 
of  the  Boethusim.3  It  overawed  the  tyranny  of  greedy 
Procurators,  aristocratic  Sadducees,  and  murderous  Zealots. 
It  survived  even  the  total  ruin  of  Jerusalem,  and  was  not 
quenched  in  the  blood  of  martyrdom  which  followed  the 
defeat  of  Barkokliba.  It  outlived  the  long  persecutions  oi 
Roman  and  Byzantine  emperors.  It  was  not  quenched  amid 
the  storms  of  Teutonic  invasion.  In  vain  were 

“  The  torture  prolonged  from  age  to  age, 

The  infamy  Israel’s  heritage  ; 

The  Ghetto’s  plague,  and  the  garb’s  disgrace, 

The  badge  of  shame,  and  the  felon’s  place  ; 

The  branding  tool,  and  the  bloody  whip, 

And  the  summons  to  Christian  fellowship  !  ” 

The  Jews  were  not  exterminated  by  the  fanaticism  of  the 
Crusades,  nor  by  the  proscriptions  and  massacres  of  the  In¬ 
quisition.  For  1700  years  after  the  Third  Captivity  the 

Galuth  Edom1 — thev  endured  an  almost  unbroken  martyrdom 

«/ 

but  again  and  again  has  Judaism  emerged  from  the  deluge 
of  calamities,  and  again  and  again  has  the  Oral  Law  been  to 
them  as  their  guide,  their  government,  their  country,  their 

God  gave  us  Daniel,  and  the  Three  Children  ;  nor  will  I  abhor  them  in 
Hainan’s  day,  when  He  gave  us  Mordecai  and  Esther  ;  I  will  not  annihilate 
them ,  under  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  when  He  gave  the  Maccabees;  I  will  swt 
break  my  covenant  with  them  in  the  captivity  of  Edom  (i.e.  Rome),  when  He 
gave  us  the  house  of  Rabbi  ( Judah  ha-nasi)  and  the  wise  of  succeeding 

^Giiercitioiis 

°  1  The  Maccabaean  struggle  was  neither  for  political  freedom,  nor  pro  aris  et 
focus,  but  for  the  Law.  1  Macc.  ii.  27  ;  iii.  21  ;  vi.  59  ;  2  Macc.  vii.  2,  23, 
30,  37.  Antiochus  was  especially  eager  to  get  the  /3i/3Aia  tov  voyov.  1  Macc. 

i.  56-58.  T  . 

2  See  the  story  of  Eleazar  the  Pharisee  and  John  Hyrcanus,  Jos.  Antt.  xm. 
10,  §  5,  and  the  quarrel  of  the  Pharisees  with  Alexander  Jannaeus,  Antt.  xiii. 
13,  §5;  and  for  this  section  of  history,  see  Derenbourg,  70-205.  The  Sad¬ 
ducees  rejected  the  Oral  Law’,  and  all  traditional  developments,  but  they  were 
completely  worsted  in  the  contest.  Jos.  Antt.  x.  22,  24  ;  xviii.  1,  2  ;  B.  J. 

ii.  12. 

3  Herod  married  a  daughter  of  Simon,  son  of  Boethos,  and  vras  in  close 
alliance  with  the  hierarchic  families.  Jos.  Antt.  xv.  9,  §  3. 

4  “  Edom  ”  was  used  in  the  Talmud  as  a  cypher  for  Rome  (Dl“LN=  DID). 


56 


A  Decadent  Epoch. 

pride,  their  consolation,  the  one  anchor  of  safety  to  which 
they  trusted  during  the  storms  which,  from  the  four  winds 
of  heaven,  were  let  loose  upon  them  by  the  hatred  ol  the 
world.1 

II.  Yet  inevitable  and  indispensable  as  was  the  work  which 
Ezra  accomplished  it  is  impossible  not  to  feel  that  it  was 
work  done  in  a  decadent  epoch,  and  for  a  degenerate  people. 
Ezra  was  like  Ezekiel  a  Priest,  and  he  was  also  a  Scribe. 
He  could  only  be  what  he  was;  what  God  had  made 
him ;  what  the  times  required  him  to  be.  If  the 
impulse  which  he  gave  to  the  national  mind  was  in  a  poorer 
direction  than  of  old — if  the  Judaism  which  he  established 
was  far  inferior  to  the  true  Hebraic  spirit — it  is  because  such 
was  the  will  of  Heaven.  The  truest  and  greatest  Prophets 
of  Israel  until  the  days  of  Ezekiel  had  treated  the  ceremonial 
ordinances  as  infinitely  unimportant  in  comparison  with  moral 
puritv.  Ezra  could  not  teach  as  they  taught  because  his 
age  required  a  different  spirit.  It  was  God  s  will  that 
the  Prophets  whom  this  people  had  persecuted  and  slain 
— the  Prophets  who  had  taught  them  truths  which  would 
have  made  them  free — should  be  followed  by  a  lower  order 
of  men;  by  Scribes,  Pharisees,  Rabbis,  who  would  lay  on 
them  heavy  burdens,  and  whom,  in  the  natural  slavishness  of 
ignoble  natures,  on  that  very  account  they  did  not  persecute 
but  adore.2  Had  Ezra  been  an  Isaiah  the  history  of  the  J ews 
would  have  been  different  and  nobler.  They  might  have 
accepted  the  Christ  whom  they  crucified.  Instead  of  filling 
their  dreary  Talmud  with  the  multiplication  of  meaningless 
minutiae,  the  Rabbis,  like  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists,  might 
have  been  reckoned  among  the  eternal  teachers  ol  the  world. 
For  the  good  in  the  system  of  Oral  Tradition  was  largely 
mixed  with  evil.  It  produced  nothing  great  in  genius, 
nothing  intense  in  inspiration,  nothing  profound  in  thought, 
nothing  beautiful  or  noble  in  literature.  One  thrilling  note 


1  See  Weill,  Lc  Judateme,  i.  170  ;  Gratz,  iv.  1. 

2  See  2  Clir.  xxxvi.  16  ;  Hos.  ix.  7  ;  Matt.  xiii.  57  ;  Lk.  iv. 
xxiii.  36  ;  Jolm  vii.  52  ;  Acts  xiii.  20,  &e. 


24, 


xiii.  23, 


A  New  Idolatry.  57 

of  David’s  harp,  one  passionate  appeal  of  Isaiah’s  burning 
indignation,  one  eloquent  homily  of  Hosea  and  Micah,  even 
one  last  expiring  gleam  of  nobleness  flashed  from  the  fading 
prophetic  fire  of  Zechariah  or  Malachi,  is  as  much  better  than 
folios  full  of  inferential  formalism  as  love  is  better  than  ritual 
and  mercy  than  sacrifice.  Tradition  shifted  the  centre 
of  gravity  of  the  moral  system.  A  minute  ritual  had  become 
the  sole  possible  fence  of  national  holiness.  The  consequence 
was  the  gradual  materialising  of  spiritual  conceptions ; 
the  dejireciation  of  righteousness  in  comparison  with  cere¬ 
monialism  and  theological  opinion.  Just  as  in  the  middle 
ages  a  suspicion  of  heresy  was  avenged  by  the  stake,  while 
heinous  moral  offences  were  easily  condoned,  so  among 
the  Rabbis,  if  a  man  were  but  an  orthodox  casuist 
his  sins  were  recorded  with  unblushing  indifference. 
The  Talmud  abounds  in  narratives  which  detail  without 
the  slightest  blame  the  impurity  of  the  Rabbis.  Their 
hedge  about  the  Law  made  no  pretence  of  keeping  out 
the  wild  boars  of  Pride  and  Lust,  though  it  might  exclude 
the  little  foxes  of  irregular  ceremonial.1  What  else  could 
be  expected  when  “dazzling  externalities”  had  once  been 
substituted  for  eternal  truths  !  2 

The  so-called  “Great  Synagogue”  which  Ezra  is  said  to 
have  founded 3  slew  Idolatry ;  but  it  substituted  in  its  place 
a  new  idolatry.  It  was  an  idolatry  more  dangerous,  more 
subtle,  more  delusive,  more  difficult  to  eradicate ;  an  idolatry 
which  ossified  the  very  heart  of  religion.  It  assumed  the 
most  solemn  sanctions  only  to  thrust  a  Book,  a  Tradition, 
and  a  Ritual  between  the  soul  and  God.  “After  the  Feast  of 
Tabernacles,”  says  the  Talmud,4  “  Ezra  established  a  fast  day 

1  Weber  quotes  Moed  Qaton,  f.  17,  1  ;  Meuachoth,  f.  13  ;  Berakhoth,  f.  19, 
1  ;  20,  1  ;  Chagiga,  f.  16  ;  Avoda  Zara,  f.  17,  1  ;  Sota,  f.  7,  1,  &c. 

2  See  the  weighty  remarks  of  Ewald,  Hist,  of  Isr.  v.  63. 

3  Krochmal  identifies  the  Great  Synagogue  with  the  Assembly  of  Notables 
in  Nell.  x.  1-27.  See  Abotli,  i.  1  ;  Aboth  of  11.  Nathan,  1  ;  Megilla,  17. 
Simon  the  Just  was  its  last  member  (Aboth,  i.  2  ;  Jos.  Antt.  xii.  2,  §  5).  Jost 
defines  them  as  “alle  die  bis  ziirn  Simon  an  der  Spitze  der  Gesetzlehre  in 
.ludaa  standen”  ( Gesch .  i.  42).  See  the  Excursus  in  Taylor,  Sayings  of  the 
Jewish  Fathers,  pp.  124,  125. 

*  Yoma,  f.  67  ;  Weill,  i.  72. 


58 


Servile  Legalism. 

on  which  he  and  the  Levites  prayed  to  God  with  loud  cries 
to  banish  idolatry  from  the  people.  A  billet  fell  from  heaven 
on  which  was  written  the  word  ‘  granted/  Alter  three  days 
and  nights  of  continued  fasting  the  spirit  of  idolatry  was  de¬ 
livered  to  them  like  a  flaming  lion  which  bounded  out  of  the 
Holy  of  Holies.  By  the  advice  of  the  Prophet  Zechariah 
they  seized  it,  and  flung  it  into  a  leaden  coffin  hermetically 
sealed.  They  then  prayed  to  God  to  annihilate  also  the  Evil 
Impulse,  but  they  checked  their  prayer  because  they  were 
taught  by  a  very  short  experience  that  its  fulfilment  would 
involve  the  extinction  of  the  human  race.1 

Alas  !  the  Evil  Impulse  was  so  far  from  being  exterminated 
that  it  found  its  stronghold  in  the  spirit  of  the  Scribe.  The 
Law — not  the  Law  in  its  simplicity  but  the  Law  modified, 
transformed,  distorted  by  Tradition — the  Law  robbed  of  its 
essential  significance  by  the  blind  zeal  which  professed  to 
defend  it — became  the  centre  of  an  abject  servility.2  It  came 
to  be  regarded  as  the  only  means  of  intercourse  with  God,  and 
almost  as  the  substitute  for  God.  Immeasurable  evils  ensued. 
Piety  dwindled  into  legalism.  Salvation  was  identified  with 
outward  conformity,  A  torturing  scrupulosity  was  substituted 
for  a  Had  obedience.  God’s  righteous  faithfulness  was  treated 
as  a  forensic  covenant.3  For  prophecy  there  was  only  the  miser¬ 
able  substitute  of  the  “Daughter  of  a  Voice;  ”4  for  faith  the 
sense  of  merit  acquired  by  legal  exactitude.5  The  “pious” 
were  hopelessly  identified  with  the  party  of  the  Scribes. 
The  Synagogues  became  schools.6  Ethics  were  sub- 

1  See  another  curious  legend  on  the  same  page  of  Yoma. 

2  Their  one  professed  object  was  /xera  ixKpi&eias  ifyye'iaOai  ra  vo^i^a.  Jos. 
Antt.  xviii.  2,  §  4  ;  B.  J.  ii.  8,  §  14. 

3  The  of  God  was  looked  upon  only  as  an  In  thus  putting 

the  conception  of  a  Covenant  into  the  forefront,  Ezra  anticipated  Cocceius 
by  2,000  years.  Ezra  ix.  9,  19,  27,  28,  34. 

4  The  Bath  Qol.  >  #  > 

5  How  unlike  the  general  tone  of  the  Psalms  and  Prophets  is  Nehemiah’s 

legalistic  prayer  that  God  would  remember  his  good  deeds  !  “  The  last  pure 

glow  of  the  long  day  of  the  Old  Testament  sun  ”  died  out  in  Malachi  (Ewald, 
v.  176),  and  with  him  perished  “  the  loftiest  and  most  characteristic  activity 
which  the  Law  had  permitted  in  ancient  times.” 

6  1  Macc.  vii.  12.  away 0)777  ypamxariuv.  Comp,  1  Chron.  ii.  55  ;  elh 
hausen,  Die  Pharisder  u.  Scidd.  12. 


Pharisaism. 


59 


ordinated  to  Liturgiology.1  Messianism  was  debased 
into  an  unmeaning  phrase  or  a  materialised  fable.2  The 
pride  of  pedantry,  despising  moral  nobleness,  and  revel¬ 
ling  in  an  hypocrisy  so  profound  as  hardly  to  recognise 
that  it  was  hypocritical,3  wrapped  itself  in  an  esoteric 
theology,  and  looked  down  on  the  children  of  a  common  Father 
as  an  accursed  multitude  in  whose  very  touch  there  was 
ceremonial  defilement.4  This  was  the  ultimate  result  of  that 
recrudescence  of  ceremonial,  which  was  the  special  work  of 
the  Scholars  of  Ezra.  And  of  this  work  the  basis  was 
a  perverted  Bibliolatry,  and  the  instrument  an  elaborate 
exegesis. 

The  new  system  had  a  success  immense  and  fatal.  In  the 
days  of  our  Lord  Pharisaism  reigned  supreme.  “  Why  do  ye 
set  at  nought  the  commandment  of  God  by  your  tradition  ?  ” 
“  In  vain  do  they  worship  me,  teaching  for  doctrines  the  com¬ 
mandments  of  men/’  Such  had  been  the  comment  of  Christ 
Himself  on  the  religionism  which  had  not  yet  ripened  in 
its  most  unwholesome  fruit.  Thus  early  did  the  degradation 
and  annulment  of  everything  which  was  precious  in  Holy 
Writ  begin  with  the  system  which  professed  to  be  founded 
on  its  extravagant  exaltation.  Even  in  Ezra’s  days,  though 
the  Books  of  Scripture  were  divided  into  what  they  called  the 


1  Aboth,  i.  2. 

2  See  Talmudic  quotations  in  Weber,  122,  and  in  Weill,  i.  95,  fg. 

3  See  Excursus  1.  Self-glorification  of  the  Rabbis  (Waehner,  ii.  785,  786, 
793  ;  Hershon,  Gen.  152,  439  ;  Luke  xi.  52  ;  Matt,  xxiii.  2  ;  Weber,  126, 
Miracles  ;  Chiarini,  i.  377). 

4  They  spoke  of  these  as  “laymen,”  Hediots  (ISiwtcu)  and  “boors” 
Amharatsim.  The  Hediot  (IMHil)  is  merely  a  man  who  has  never  become 
one  of  “  the  Wise.”  He  may  become  an  Associate  ( chaber )  but  not  a 
Wise-man,  because  he  does  not  devote  his  life  exclusively  to  the  Law. 
Shabbath,  f.  11,  1.  The  Ignoramus  (Ecclus.  xxxix.  xxxviii.  24-34,  “whose 
talk  is  of  bullocks”),  or  “people  of  the  land,”  am-lia-arets,  (yiXn  Dy) 
was  spoken  of  by  the  Rabbis  with  an  almost  inconceivable  brutality, 
of  which  a  specimen  may  be  seen  in  John  vii.  49  ;  Sota,  f.  22,  1.  The 
resurrection  was  denied  to  them  (Kethuboth,  f.  iii.  1)  on  the  strength  of  la. 
xxvi.  14.  “The  dead  live  not,  the  shades  ( Rephaim )  arise  not.”  Rabbi 
refused  them  corn  in  a  famine  ( Baba  Bathra,  f.  8,  2).  They  are  treated  as 
liars  and  rogues  ( Pcsachim,  f.  49,  2) ;  and  it  was  lawful  to  rend  an  Am -ha-are  ts 
like  a  fish  ( ib .).  They  applied  Jer.  xxxi.  37,  Prov.  xxiv.  20,  to  amharatsim. 
See  Weber,  45-48  ;  McC’aul,  Old  Paths,  pp.  458-464.  Thus  the  Pharisees 
were  “  Separatists  ”  ( Pcrushim )  in  the  worst  sense. 


CO  Claiming  too  much . 

Tenakli,1  that  is  the  Torah,  the  Nebilm,  and  the  Kliethubim, 
the  Law  was  practically  made  to  include  all  the  rest.2  It 
was  regarded  as  eternal.3  God  himself  was  supposed  to 
spend  three  hours  daily  in  its  study.4  Its  mere  words  and 
letters  were  potent  as  magic  formulae.  But  it  was  at  the 
same  time  pretended  that  the  rule  ( norma  nor  mans )  required 
the  intervention  of  skilled  interpreters  without  which  it  could 
not  become  the  practice  ( norma  normaia).  Thus  on  the  one 
hand  Rabbinism  was  founded  upon  bases  as  solid  as  that  of 
the  mediaeval  Papacy,  and  on  the  other  the  plainest  decisions 
of  this  deified  Law  were  set  aside  with  the  most  transparent 
effrontery.5  Claiming  too  much  for  the  Law  the  Rabbis  left 
it  too  little.  By  adding  to  God’s  commandments  so  largely 
they  also  took  from  them.  By  imposing  additional  restrictions 

they  broke  down  proper  safeguards. 

This  tremendous  tyranny  of  Rabbinism  was  built  upon 
superstition  and  exclusiveness.  The  Scribes  were  declared 
to  be  the  successors  of  Moses.  The  scholastic  lecture  room 
was  the  heir  of  the  political  Sanhedrin.  The  Patriarchs  of 
the  House  of  Hillel  combined  for  fourteen  generations  the 
powers  of  Davidic  king  and  Aaromc  pontiff.  The  casuists 
of  Tradition  completely  superseded  the  Levitic  Priests.6  All 
liberty  of  thought  was  abrogated ;  all  Gentile  learning  was 
forbidden;  no  communion  was  allowed  with  the  human 
intellect  outside  the  Pharisaic  pale.  Within  the  circle  of 
Rabbinism  the  Jew  was  “the  galley-slave  of  the  most  rigid 
orthodoxy.”  The  yoke  of  the  Romans  was  not  so  exacting 
as  that  of  the  Rabbis,  which  dominated  over  a  man’s  whole 


1  Buxtorf,  De  Abbrev.  s.v.  ”pn.  See  Bretschneider,  Dogmatik  d.  apocr. 
Schriflen,_  64-67.  _  ......  - a  .  Mace.  i. 


All  sects 


See  the  Book  of  Baruch,  ii.  27-34  j  iii.  37  ;  iv.  1,  and  passim,  4 

16  ;  Ecclus.  xv.  1  ;  xvii.  9.  ^  . 

3  Wisd.  xviii.  4  ;  Tob.  i.  6  ;  2  Macc.  vi.  23  ;  3  Esd.  ix.  39,  & c. 
alike  claimed  Scripture  as  their  authority.  Hamburger,  sv.  Bibel. 

4  So  Rabbi  Juda  asserted  in  the  name  of  Rab.  .  Avoda  Zara,,  r.  3,  2. 

5  Weill  (i.  62)  says  that  the  new  exegesis  which  received  its.  impulse  from 
the  days  of  Ezra  established  “  liberty  of  interpretation,”  “qui  modi  fie,  qui 
transforme,  qui  tourne,  qui  retourne,  qui  remue  le  texte  biblique. 

6  The  Targum  on  Judg.  v  9  interpolates  a  pompous  eulogy  on  toe  Scribes 
into  the  song  of  Deborah  !  The  Scribes  made  it  a  high  misdemeanour  to  reject 

their  decisions. 


Tyranny  of  Scribes. 


61 


existence  and  intruded  itself  into  the  most  trivial  actions  of 
life.  The  weak  were  tortured  by  the  knowledge  that  they 
could  not  so  much  as  wash  their  hands  or  eat  a  meal  without 
running  the  risk  of  deadly  offences.  The  “ordination”  1  of  the 
Rabbis  made  them  oracles  for  every  subject  and  every  action, 
from  the  cleaning  of  the  teeth  to  the  last  prayer  in  which 
the  dying  commended  their  souls  to  God.  If  any  one  gave  a 
rule  which  he  had  not  heard  from  them  the  Shekinah  de¬ 
parted  from  Israel.2  Their  coercion  was  made  yet  more  terrible 
by  maledictions.  “  The  whole  range  of  action  permitted  to 
the  Jewish  mind  was  included  in  the  mazes  of  a  vaulted 
labyrinth  from  which  there  was  no  outlet  but  through  the 
terrible  gate  of  excommunication,”  of  which  the  milder  forms3 
blasted  the  reputation,  and  the  sterner4  shattered  the  tem¬ 
poral  interests,  and  ruined  the  everlasting  welfare.  Rabbinism 
was  nothing  but  a  variety  of  sacerdotalism  in  which  orthodox 
pedants,  expounding  a  system  of  unconscious  delusion,  wielded 
all  the  authority  of  sacrificing  Priests.5 

It  was  the  professed  object  of  the  Scribes  to  exalt  and 
glorify  the  Law.6  “ The  world,”  says  Simon  the  Just,  “stands 
on  three  things — the  Law,  Ritual,7  and  Well-doing,”  and  the 
Law  is  significantly  put  first.  “  There  are  three  crowns,” 
says  the  Talmud,  “  the  crown  of  Royalty,  the  crown  of  Priest¬ 
hood,  and  the  Crown  of  the  Law,  but  the  •  latter  is  of  more 
worth  than  both  the  others,  and  he  who  has  it  is  as  good  as 
if  he  had  all  three.”  “  Be  circumspect  in  justice,”  said  the 
men  of  the  Great  Synagogue,  “get  many  pupils,  and  make  a 

1  See  too  Aboth,  iii,  8  ;  iv.  13. 

2  Berakhoth,  f.  27,  2.  See  Etheridge,  56,  57  ;  Jost,  Gesch.  cl.  Israel . , 
iii.  120. 

3  Ncsi'pha  ;  niddui. 

4  Chcrem  ;  Shematta. 

5  Scarcely  had  the  Great  Synagogue  passed  away  when  we  find  “  the  couples  ” 
( Zougoth )  who  succeeded  to  it  leaving  as  the  summary  of  their  wisdom  such 
rules  as  “  Let  thy  house  be  a  house  of  assembly  for  the  wise,  and  dust  thyself 
with  the  dust  of  their  feet,  and  drink  their  words  with  thirst.” 

e  See  Ecclus.  xxiv.  ;  Baruch  iv.  1  ;  Bereshith  Rabba ,  c.  17.  In  Jalqut  on 
Gen.  i.  26,  God  says  to  the  Thor  a,  “We  will  make  men.”  Aboth,  vi.  10  ; 
viii.  22.  For  many  passages  of  the  Talmud,  see  Weber,  16,  17.  For  a 
list  of  the  terms  of  eulogy  heaped  on  the  Law — fire,  light,  dawn,  milk,  balm, 
pearls,  &c.,  Waehner,  Antt.  Ebr.  ii.  793  ;  Weber,  p.  55. 

7  m)2V,  Temple-service.  Aboth,  i.  2. 


62 


Self-exaltation. 


hedge  (j«d)  about  the  Law/’ 1  The  hedge  was  made  ;  its  con¬ 
struction  was  regarded  as  the  main  function  of  Rabbinism  ; 2  it 
excluded  all  light  from  without  and  all  egress  from  within  ;  but 
it  was  so  carefully  cultivated  that  the  shrine  itself  was  totally 
disregarded.3  The  Oral  Law  was  first  exalted  as  a  necessary 
supplement  to  the  Written  Law;  then  substituted  in  the 
place  of  it ; 4  and  finally  identified  with  the  inferences  of  the 
Rabbis.  The  Pentateuch  was  disparaged  in  comparison  with 
the  Mishna,  the  Mishna  in  comparison  with  the  voluminous 
expansions  of  the  Gemara.  Supported  by  the  False  Decretals 
of  Judaism  which  asserted  that  the  Oral  Law  had  been 
handed  down  by  Mosaic  succession  through  a  chain  of 
recipients,  the  Scribes  proceeded  to  make  disobedience  to 
their  decisions  more  perilous  than  disobedience  to  a  moral 
commandment.5  “  The  voice  of  the  Rabbi  is  as  the 
voice  of  God.” 6  “  He  who  transgresses  the  words  of  the 

Scribes  throws  away  his  life.”  “  Scripture  is  like  water, 
the  Mishna  like  wine ;  the  Gemara  like  spiced  wine.” 

1  Siphri,  40,  a.  ;  Aboth,  iv.  17  ;  Yoma,  f.  72  ;  Weber,  Alt.  Theol.  39  ;  Weill, 
i.  96. 

2  Lev.  xviii.  30.  “Make  a  mishmereth  to  my  mishmereth.”  Yebamoth, 
f.  21  (Taylor  oil  Aboth,  i.  1).  Yet  the  Rabbis  pointed  to  Adam’s  “  neither 
shall  ye  touch  it  ”  as  an  addition  to  God’s  command,  and  therefore  a  misappli¬ 
cation  of  the  “  hedge  about  the  law.” 

3  Similarly  the  very  name  Jehovah,  in  its  true  pronunciation,  disappeared  in 
consequence  of  the  crude  superstition  with  which  it  was  nominally  protected. 
It  is  now  pronounced  with  the  vowels  of  Adonai. 

4  The  divinity  of  the  Oral  Law,  or  “  Law  upon  the  Mouth  ”  ( Thora  shebcal 
Pi)  was  based  on  perversions  of  Deut.  xvii.  8—12  ;  xviii.  15-20,  just  as  the 
Papal  tyranny  wTas  based  on  a  perversion  of  Matt.  xvi.  19.  See  the  preface  to 
the  Yad  Hachazaka  of  Maimonides,  and  his  comment  on  Sanhedrin,  c.  10. 
The  word  “  mouth  ”  (A.Y.  “  tenor  ”)  in  Ex.  xxxiv.  27  was  explained  to 
refer  to  the  Oral  Law.  Aboth,  i.  1  ;  Weill,  iii.  262-266.  In  Ex.  xxiv. 
12,  they  say  that  the  five  clauses  refer  to  (1)  The  Decalogue,  (2)  The  Thora,  (3) 
The  Mishna,  (4)  The  Khethubin,  (5)  The  Gemara,  which  were  all  taught  to 
Moses  on  Sinai!  The  term,  “  Law  on  the  Mouth,”  i.e.  Oral  Law,  is  found 
very  early.  Zunz,  Gottcsd.  Vortrdge,  45. 

6  To  prove  this  they  quoted  Scripture  for  their  purpose.  Thus  in  Eccles. 

xii.  12  they  altered  D’"lGp,  “books,”  into  D'HSpiD,  “scribes,”  and  JH?, 

“study,”  into  “derision.”  ’Erubin,  f.  21,  2.  In  Eccl.  x.  8,  we  find 
“whoso  breaketh  a  hedge,  a  serpent  shall  bite  him.”  Now  the  words  of 
the  wise  are  a  hedge  to  the  law,  and  the  bite  of  a  serpent  is  incurable. 
Shabbath,  f.  110,  1.  On  the  other  hand,  as  Eashi  says,  the  punishment  of 
death  is  not  threatened  to  many  of  the  commands  and  prohibitions  of  the 
law.  Comp.  Berakhoth,  f.  4,  1.  Aqiba  was  ready  to  die  of  thirst  rather  than 
to  neglect  “  the  words  of  the  wise  ”  by  not  washing  his  hands  before  eating. 

6  ’Erubin,  f.  21. 


63 


Fetisli-worship  becomes  Casuistry. 

“  The  Scripture  is  as  salt,  the  Mishna  as  pepper,  the 
Gemara  as  spice/’ 1  “  There  is  no  salvation,”  said  Rab, 

“for  the  man  who  passes  from  the  study  of  the  Halakha  to 
that  of  Scripture.”2  “Men  learned  in  Scripture  are  only  as 
the  tendrils  of  the  vine  ;  the  Mishna  students  are  the  grapes ; 
the  students  of  the  Gemara  are  the  ripe  clusters.”  3  “  The 

study  of  Scripture  is  non-meritorious ;  the  study  of  the 
Mishna  deserves  a  reward ;  the  study  of  the  Gemara  is  an 
unapproachable  virtue.”  “  He  who  only  studies  the  Scriptures 
is  but  an  ‘  empty  cistern.’ 4  “  Words  of  Scribes,”  said  Rabbi 

Johanan,  “  are  akin  to  words  of  the  Law,  and  more  beloved.” 5 

It  will  be  seen  how  easy  was  the  step  to  the  contemptuous 
setting  aside  of  the  whole  meaning  of  Holy  Writ.  For 
Scripture  History  we  find  the  gross  substitution  of  the  fictions 
that  Israel  is  sinless,  and  holy,  and  never  committed  idolatry  ; 
that  Rebecca,  and  Rachel,  and  Leah  were  never  actuated  by 
any  but  the  purest  motives ;  that  Reuben  never  committed 
incest ;  that  Judah  took  the  daughter  of  “  a  merchant,”  not 
of  a  “  Canaanite ;  ”  that  the  Twelve  Patriarchs  were  all  im¬ 
maculate  ;  that  they  never  meant  to  murder  their  brother 
J oseph  until  he  tried  to  lead  them  into  Baal-worship ;  that 
Tamar  was  a  daughter  of  Shem,  and  was  perfectly  nnocent ; 
that  it  was  only  the  Proselytes,  not  the  Israelites,  who  wor¬ 
shipped  the  golden  calf;  that  neither  Aaron’s  sons,  nor 
Samuel’s  sons,  nor  Eli’s  sons,  were  really  guilty.  David, 
Bathslieba,  Josiah,  are  all  excused  from  blame,  and  so  step 
by  step  by  the  aid  of  an  exegesis  which  began  in  fetish 
worship  and  ended  in  casuistry,  Scripture  was  first  placed 
upon  an  idol's  pedestal  and  then  treated  with  contumely 
by  its  own  familiar  priests.6 

1  Sopherim,  f.  15,  2.  Comp.  Vayikra  Rabba,  c.  36. 

2  Cliagiga,  f.  10,  1. 

3  ’Erubin,  f.  21,  2.  The  very  world  would  be  in  danger  if  the  Mishnas 
only  were  consulted  in  legal  decisions.  Sota,  f.  21,  1  ;  Baba  Metzia,  f.  33,  1. 
Bee  these  and  other  quotations  in  Weber,  l.  c.  102-106  ;  Weill,  i.  91  ;  Chia- 
rini,  Tliiorie  du  Judaisme,  i.  202-206. 

4  “113.  Sota,  f.  22,  1.  5  Berakhoth,  f.  i.  7. 

6  Sanhedrin,  f.  55,  56.  “Whoever  says  that  Reuben,  the  sons  of  Samuel, 
David,  and  Solomon,  have  sinned  is  decidedly  in  error.”  Sanhedrin,  f. 
55,  56.  See  all  the  original  passages  of  the  Talmud  quoted  in  Weber,  Altsyn. 
Thcel.  55,  56. 


64 


Rabbinic  Casuistry. 


Nor  is  this  all :  the  exegesis  of  the  Scribes  not  only  re¬ 
versed  the  history  of  Scripture,  but,  as  our  Lord  said,  deliber¬ 
ately  set  aside  the  plain  meaning  of  the  laws  which  they 
professed  to  deify.  We  have  already  noticed  how  they 
abolished  the  humane  provision  of  Moses  for  the  slave  who 
did  not  wish  to  be  separated  from  his  family.  In  the  same 
way  Hillel  by  his  legal  fiction  of  “  the  Prosbol,”  1  found  it  easy 
to  nullify  the  fundamental  Mosaic  provision  of  the  Sabbatic 
year.  “  He  did  it,”  says  the  Talmud,  “  for  the  good  order 
of  the  world  ;  ”  and  by  a  still  more  transparent  collusion  he 
set  aside  the  Levitical  law  about  the  sale  of  houses.2  The 
Pharisees  by  their  rule  of  “  Mixtures  ”  managed  in  a  similar 
way  to  get  rid  of  everything  which  was  inconvenient  in  the 
Sabbath  observances.  These  accommodations  may  have  been 
in  themselves  excusable ;  but  thus  to  violate  a  Law  which 
they  pretended  all  the  while  to  regard  as  infinitely  sacred,  was 
an  encouragement  to  the  grossest  hypocrisy,  and  can  only  be 
classed  with  the  transparent  frauds  of  an  ignorant  Paganism.3 

Even  where  the  Pabbinic  misinterpretations  were  only 
theoretical  they  were  marked  by  the  same  sacrifice  of  the 
spirit  to  the  letter.  In  the  treatise  Sanhedrin  it  is  argued 
that  the  man  who  made  all  his  children  pass  through  the 
fire  to  Moloch  would  be  guilty  of  no  sin,  because  Moses  only 
said  “thy  seed  ”  and  not  “ all  thy  seed.”  4  “  There  was,”  says 

the  Talmud,  “  an  unimpeachable  disciple  at  Jabne  who  could 
adduce  a  hundred  and  fifty  arguments  in  favour  of  the  clean - 

1  Gittin,  v.  5.  Derived  from  npbs  &ov\rj  (irpecr^vT^pcov).  In  order  to  evade 
the  Mosaic  law  of  the  remission  of  debt  in  the  Jubilee  year  the  creditor 
presented  4 ‘before  the  council”  a  certified  agreement  that  he  would  at  any 
time  have  the  right  to  claim  his  debt.  Sheb.  x.  3,  4  ;  Gittin,  f.  36,  1,  quoted  by 
Edersheim,  Prophecy  and  History,  p.  279.  In  earlier  times  according  to  Sheb. 
x.  8,  the  creditor  might  remit  the  debt  but  stand  with  his  hand  open  to  receive 
it !  It  utterly  nullified  Deut.  xv.  2.  Even  the  Rabbis  were  startled  by  this 
sacrifice  of  the  Mosaic  law  to  convenience.  Jost,  Judenth.  i.  266.  See 
Hamburger  II.  s.v.  Proslml.  It  was  nothing  more  than  praevaricatio — a 
collusive  agreement. 

2  Lev.  xxv.  29,  30  ;  Erachin.  ix.  4.  See  Derenbourg,  p.  189. 

3  Luzzato  not  only  admits  that  the  Rabbinic  scholars  did  violence  to  the 
natural  sense,  but  even  says  that  this  was  done  on  the  principle  of  “preferring 
general  utility  to  exegetic  verity.”  He  quotes  Cicero  ( de  Juvent.  i.  38), 
“  Omnes  leges  ad  commodum  reip.  referri  oportet,  et  eas  ex  utilitate  eommuni, 
non  ex  scriptione,  quae  in  literis  est,  interpretari.” 

4  Sanhedrin,  f.  64,  2  ;  Chiarini,  ii.  229. 


Chiefs  of  the  Schools. 


65 


ness  of  creeping  things.”  1  “  No  one  is  appointed  a  member 

of  the  Sanhedrin  who  is  not  ingenious  enough  to  prove  from 
the  Law  that  a  creeping  thing  is  ceremonially  clean.”  2  «  God 
so  gave  the  Law  to  Moses  that  a  thing  may  be  pronounced 
clean  or  unclean  in  forty-nine  different  ways.”  3 

III.  The  builders  of  this  vast  inverted  pyramid  of  exegesis, 
which  so  seldom  explained  and  so  often  explained  away, 
were  many  in  number.  The  most  eminent  among  them 
were  Hillel;  Shammai ;  Rabbi  Johanan  ben  Zakkai  ;  Rabbi 
Aqiba  ;  and  Rabbi  Juda  the  Holy. 

1.  The  Rabbis  love  to  dwell  on  the  life  of  “the  sweet  and 
noble  Hillel,” — his  Babylonian  extraction;  his  voluntary 
poverty;  his  life  as  a  porter;  his  being  found  on  a  Sabbath 
morning  by  Shemaia  and  Abtalion  half  frozen  in  the  window 
of  their  school ;  his  varied  learning ;  his  whole  day’s  argument 
with  the  Beni  Bethyra,  and  the  victory  which  he  finally  won 
by  appealing  to  the  “  decision”  of  his  teachers;  his  elevation 
to  the  post  of  President ; 4  his  imperturbable  meekness ;  his 
profound  and  witty  utterances ;  his  humanism ;  his  sacrifice 
even  of  the  truth  to  avoid  a  quarrel  with  the  school  of 
Shammai ; 5  his  famous  summary  of  the  whole  law  under 
the  rule  of  love  to  our  neighbour.6  His  services  were  mainly 
two — namely,  Classification  and  Hermeneutics.  He  reduced 
to  Six  Orders — the  first  oral  basis  of  the  future  Mishna — the 
chaotic  mass  of  rules  which  had  gathered  round  the  613 
Mosaic  precepts.  He  also  drew  up  the  seven  exegetic  rules 
perhaps  due  to  the  infiltration  of  Greek  logic — which  were 
the  basis  of  all  later  developments  of  the  Oral  Law.  Hence, 

1  ’Embin,  f.  13,  2. 

Sanhedrin,  f.  17,  1.  Quoted  inHerslion’s  Genesis,  p.  54. 

3  This  latter  quotation  is  from  the  post-Talmudic  tract,  Sopherim,  c.  16  ; 
and  it  is  proved  (!)  from  Cant.  ii.  4,  because  in  that  verse  (by  Gematria)  the 

word  1^2*11  =  49.  See  Pesikhta  Rabbathi,  f.  23,  1  ;  Eisenmenger,  Entd.  Jud. 
i.  454  ;  Deyling,  Obs.  Sacr.  iii.  140. 

4  frPw‘2)  ( Tjyov/xevos ). 

Thtsa,  f.  20,  1.  Hillel  and  Shammai  were  the  last  of  the  “couples” 
(Zougoth)  who  succeeded  to  the  leadership  of  the  schools  after  the  death  of 
Simon  the  Just.  Ihe  previous  couple,  Shemaia  and  Abtalion,  were  the  first  to 
receive  the  title  of  “  Exegete  ”  ( Darshan ). 

6  On  this  see  Tob.  iv.  16  ;  Jost,  Judenth.  i.  259. 

F 


66 


Hillel. 


like  Ezra,  he  is  called  a  restorer  of  the  Law,1  for  his  rules 
rendered  it  possible  always  to  rediscover  the  Oral  Law  even 
if  it  was  forgotten,  and  to  maintain  it  against  the  Sadducees 
on  grounds  nominally  scriptural.  His  extraordinary  merits 
secured  the  Patriarchate  to  his  descendants  for  four  hundred 
and  fifty  years,2  and  he  must  be  regarded  as  the  earliest  founder 
of  the  Talmudic  system.3  The  Jews  themselves  deplored  the 
bitter  and  sterile  confusion  which  began  in  his  school  and 
that  of  Shammai.4  The  pupils  of  these  schools  were  the  first 
to  display  that  fondness  for  pompous  titles  which  is  repro¬ 
bated  in  the  Gospels.  A  modern  Jewish  historian  has  had 
the  extraordinary  boldness  to  assert  that  Jesus  “was  a  Rabbi 
of  the  school  of  Hillel.” 5  The  sentence  has  been  seized  with 
avidity  by  those  who  desired  to  diminish  the  greatness  or  de¬ 
preciate  the  originality  of  Christ.  Let  it  here  suffice  to  say 

1  Sukka,  f.  20,  1.  In  the  wailing  at  his  death  they  cried,  “  Oh,  the  pious  ! 
oh,  the  scholar  of  Ezra !  ”  Sanhedrin,  f.  11,  1.  The  very  remarkable  story 
of  his  elevation  to  the  presidency  of  the  schools  is  related  in  Pesachim,  f.  66, 
1  (Hershon,  Genesis,  p.  327).  The  Sanhedrin  is  first  mentioned  under 
Hyrcanus  II.  (Jos.  Antt.  xiv.  9),  hut  may  be  referred  to  in  2  Macc.  i.  8,  10  ; 
iv.  44  ;  xi.  27. 

2  The  patriarchs  of  the  house  of  Hillel  were,  according  to  Hamburger  ( s.v . 
Nctssi)  :  1.  Hillel.  2.  Rabban  Simeon.  3.  Rabban  Gamaliel  I.  4.  Rabban 
Simeon  II.  5.  Rabban  Gamaliel  II.  of  Jabne.  6.  Rabban  Simeon  III.  of 
Sepphoris.  7.  Rabbi  (Judah  Hakkodesh).  8.  R.  Gamaliel  III.  9.  R.  Judah  II. 
10.  R.  Gamaliel  IY.  11.  R.  Judah  III.  12.  R.  Hillel  II.  13.  R.  Gamaliel  Y. 
14.  R.  Judah  IY.  15.  Gamaliel  YI.  He  is  called  Batraa,  “the  last.” 
The  office  of  Nasi  was  abolished  by  Theodosius  (Cod.  Theod.  de  Jud.  i.  22) 
after  a  continuance  of  446  years,  A.D.  415.  The  people  themselves  were  weary 
of  the  pride  and  exactions  of  the  patriarchs. 

3  On  the  life  and  work  of  Hillel,  see  Budaeus,  Philos.  Ebr.  104-112  ;  Gratz, 
iii.  172-178,  186-205  ;  Derenbourg,  176-193  ;  Jost,  Gesch.  d.  Isr.  iii.  112- 
118  ;  Jost,  Judenthum,  254-270  ;  "Weber,  Altsyn.  Theol.  'passim  ;  Friedlander, 
Geschichtsbilder,  19-29.  The  chief  Talmudic  passages  about  his  life  and 
doings  are  Berakhoth,  f.  60  ;  Joma,  f.  35  ;  Qiddushin,  f.  71,  1  ;  Sukka,  f.  20, 
1  ;  Sota,  f.  28,  2  ;  Pesachim,  f.  66,  2  ;  Sanhedrin,  ii.  1  ;  Baba  Bathra,  f. 
144,  1  ;  Bereshith  Rabba,  c.  33,  98.  See  Fiirst,  Kultur  und  Lit.  pp.  11-15. 
The  schools  of  Hillel  and  Shammai  only  produced  two  books,  the  Megillath 
Taanith,  and  a  book  about  the  Maccabees  (M.  Beth  Hasmonaim)  no  longer 
extant. 

4  The  Nazarenes  applied  Is.  viii.  14,  “He  shall  be  ...  for  a  stone  of 
stumbling  to  both  the  houses  of  Israel,”  to  the  schools  of  Hillel  and  Shammai, 
“quod,  per  traditiones  et  Sevrepdoaeis  suas,  Legis  praecepta dissipaverint  atque 
mutaverint  ;  et  has  esse  duas  domos  quae  Salvatorem  non  receperint.”  Jer. 
ad  loc. 

5  “Jesus  .  .  .  war  ein  Pharisiier  der  auch  in  den  Wegen  Hillel’s  gin  g.” — 

Geiger,  Das  Judenth.  i.  117.  “  Hillel  soheint  sein  Vorbild  und  Musterbild 

gewesen  zu  seyn.” — Friedlander,  Geschichtsbilder ,  p.  32.  “Hillel  fut  le 
vrai  maitre  de  Jesus.” — Renan,  Vie  de  Jesus ,  p.  35. 


Shammai. 


67 


that  no  sentence  can  be  imagined  which,  whether  it  be  tested 
by  principles  or  by  details,  is  so  utterly  the  reverse  of  truth. 
Our  Lord  taught  with  authority,  and  Hillel  as  one  of  the 
scribes.  Christ  appealed  to  the  reason  and  to  the  conscience, 
Hillel  to  precedent  and  tradition.  It  was  the  object  of  Hillel 
to  strengthen  the  hedge  about  the  Law,  and  of  Christ  to 
break  it  completely  down.1  Hillel  paid  infinite  regard  to 
the  Oral  Law ;  Christ  repudiated  its  validity  with  complete 
disparagement,  and  even  with  burning  indignation.  Hillel 
developed  the  Halakha  and  the  Haggada;  .Christ  never  alluded 
to  the  one,  nor  uttered  a  single  specimen  of  the  other.  Hillel 
was  casuistic  and  particularist ;  Jesus  universal  and  divinely 
spiritual.2  Christ  was  the  Messiah,  and  Hillel,  sharing  the 
deep  religious  decadence  of  his  nation,  declared  that  no  such 
Messiah  would  ever  come.3 

2.  Shammai,  the  rival  of  Hillel,  was  a  much  less  interesting 
person.  He  was  a  formalist  of  the  narrowest  school.  In 
spite  of  his  traditional  rule — “  make  learning  your  business, 
speak  little,  do  much,  and  receive  every  one  kindly  ” — he  is 
described  as  a  man  of  sour  manners  and  violent  temper. 
The  depth  of  his  formalism  may  be  estimated  by  the  fact 
that  he  nearly  starved  his  infant  grandson  in  the  attempt  to 
make  him  fast  on  the  Hay  of  Atonement,  and  at  the  Feast  of 
Tabernacles  reared  a  booth  over  the  bed  where  his  daughter 

O 

lay  in  the  agony  of  childbirth.  Unlike  Hillel  he  has 
not  left  us  a  single  ethical  maxim  of  the  smallest  value. 
The  J ewish  proverb  expressed  the  difference  between  them 
by  saying  that  “  Shammai  bound  and  Hillel  loosed ;  ”  in 
other  words  Shammai  interpreted  every  legal  maxim  with 
the  extremest  rigidity,  while  Hillel  allowed  modifying  cir¬ 
cumstances.  Their  conclusions  were  often  diametrically 
opposed  to  each  other.  Serious  Jews  complained  that  the 

1  See  especially  the  right  rendering  of  Mark  vii.  19. 

2  On  this  question  see  Delitzsch,  Jesus  und  Hillel;  Ewald,  Gesch.  v.  12-48; 
Iveim,  Jesu  von  Hazara,  i.  268-272. 

3  Sanhedrin,  f.  96,  2,  but  see  Jost,  Gesch.  d.  Isr.  iii.  150.  So  the  mediaeval 
theologian,  Joseph  Albo,  denies  that  Messianism  is  a  Jewish  dogma,  otherwise 
the  Soteriology  of  Law  would  be  injured.  Here  we  have  the  fundamental 
opposition  between  Judaism  and  Christianity. 

F  2 


68 


Jolianan  Ben  Zdkkai. 


Law  became  “two  Laws.”  In  consequence  of  this  their 
scholars  even  came  to  blows,  so  that  the  floor  of  the  schools 
was  stained  with  blood ;  yet  the  Bath  Qol  declared  that  both 
were  right,  only  that  Hillel  won  the  palm  by  his  superior 
meekness.1  The  very  principles  at  stake  between  the  two 
schools  Avere  a  matter  of  dispute.  With  reference  to  Sham- 
mai’s  multiplication  of  details  R.  Eliezer  approvingly  said, 
“  When  a  cask  is  full  of  nuts  you  can  still  pour  in  mustard 
seed  without  making  it  too  full.”  “But,”  said  R.  Joshua,  in 
defence  of  Hillel,  “  when  you  pour  water  into  a  vessel  already 
filled  with  oil  you  lose  in  oil  what  you  gain  in  water.” 

3.  The  services  of  Johan AN  Ben  Zakkai  were  more 
practical  and  real.2  He  was  one  of  the  greatest  of  the  pupils  of 
Hillel,  and  the  Talmud  says  that  he  burned  with  such  ardour 
while  he  studied  the  Law  that  the  birds  which  flew  over  his 
head  were  consumed.  He  opposed  the  Zealots,  and  resisted  the 
rebellion  against  the  Romans.  The  legend  of  him  relates 
that,  forty  years  before  the  Destruction  of  the  Temple,  when 
the  huge  bronze  doors  had  opened  of  themselves,  Johanan 
rebuked  them  with  the  words,  “  Why,  oh  sanctuary,  dost  thou 
pretend  to  fear  ?  I  know  that  thou  shalt  be  devastated. 
Zachariah,  son  of  Iddo,  hath  predicted,  ‘  Open  thy  doors ,  oh 
Lebanon ,  that  the  fire  may  devour  thy  cedars .’  ” 3  Escaping 
from  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  by  being  carried  on  a  bier  as 
one  who  had  died,  he  was  well  received  by  the  Romans,  pro¬ 
phetically  saluted  Vespasian  with  the  title  of  Emperor, 
and  after  the  fall  of  the  city  became  a  new  Ezra  to  his 
nation.  How  little  did  the  Romans  think  when  they  granted 
the  humble  request  of  the  fugitive  Rabbi,  to  open  a  school  at 
Jabne,4  that  they  were  inaugurating  a  power  which  should 

1  On  this  paragraph  see  Jost,  Judenthum,  i.  260  ;  Gesch.  d.  Isr.  iii.  118  ; 
Yom  tob,  f.  63  ;  Jer.  Shabbath,  f.  61  ;  f.  17,  1  ;  f .  33  ;  ’Erubin,  f.  13,  2  ; 
Sukka,  f.  28,  1  :  Maimonides  on  Aboth,  v.  17  ;  Gratz,  iii.  178  ;  Eriedlander, 
Geschichtsbilder ,  26,  sq. 

2  Sukka,  f.  28,1  ;  Baba  Bathra,  f.  134,  1  ;  Tosefta  Joma,  4  ;  Derenbourg,  p. 
276  ;  Friedlander,  Geschichtsbilder,  28. 

3  Is.  x.  34;  Midrash  Koheleth,  64  ;  Gittin,  f.  56  ;  Aboth  Eabbi  Nathan,  4  ; 
Gratz,  iv.  13. 

4  Jabne,  the  ancient  Jabneel,  in  the  tribe  of  Judah,  not  far  from  Joppa, 
was  reconquered  from  the  Philistines  by  Uzziah.  It  was  six  miles  from 
Jerusalem,  and  had  a  mixed  population  of  Jews  and  Gentiles. 


Services  of  Joiianan. 


69 


long  outlive  their  own  Empire,  and  should,  sixty  years 
later,  cost  them  a  sea  of  blood  to  quench  the  flames  of 
another  insurrection !  Yet  so  it  was !  The  fires  that  burnt 
the  Temple  became  the  auroral  glow  of  a  new  day  for 
Judaism.1  Johanan,  like  Jeremiah  after  the  destruction 
of  the  First  Temple,  had  the  genius  to  see  that  religious 
independence  was  a  thing  separable  from,  and  even  stronger 
than,  political  existence.  He  strove  to  rescue  what  still 
remained,  and  taught  his  people  to  take  as  their  symbol 
the  Bush  in  the  Wilderness,  burning  yet  unconsumed. 

The  study  of  the  Law  became  once  more  a  rallying  ground 
for  the  race.  Seated  on  his  high  chair  with  his  “  Associates  ” 2 
around  him,  and  his  pupils  on  low  mats  upon  the  floor,  the 
Head  of  the  School  might  look  with  disdain  and  indifference 
upon  the  agitations  of  the  world.  “Judaism  found  its  last 
asylum  in  its  academies.  A  conquered  nation  changed  its 
military  leaders  into  Babbis,  and  its  hosts  into  armies  of  pale¬ 
cheeked  students  covered  with  the  dust  of  the  schools.” 3  In¬ 
flexible  in  the  midst  of  crushing  disaster,  formed  on  the  best 
teachings  of  Hillel,4  Johanan  became  the  Gaius  Terentius  Yarro 
of  Judaism.  He  did  not  despair  of  the  Theocracy.  Calm,  re¬ 
signed,  sympathetic,  nobly  superior  to  the  frantic  spirit  of 
hatred  which  began  to  animate  his  race,  his  favourite  quota¬ 
tion,  like  that  of  our  Lord,  was,  “  I  will  have  mercy  and  not 
sacrifice.”  5  He  said  that  the  reason  why  no  iron  instrument 

1  Jost,  Judenth.  i.  6.  Fiirst  says  that  the  canon  was  developed  between 
B.c.  585-300  ;  tradition  and  Jewish  theology  between  b.c.  300-32.  He  placed 
the  most  direct  influence  of  Babylonish  studies  (Hillel,  Cliija,  Nathan)  between 
b.c.  32  and  a.d.  68. 

2  Chaberim.  3  Isaac  Disraeli. 

4  See  Aboth,  i.  12-14  ;  ii.  5-7. 

5  Aboth  of  Rabbi  Nathan,  4  ;  Gittin,  f.  56,  1.  It  was  natural  that  from 
this  time  should  date  the  intense  hatred  of  the  Jews  to  heathendom,  which 
was  repaid  with  a  hatred  equally  intense.  Henceforth  the  Jews  and  the 
Pagans  each  acquired  in  the  Jewish  schools  their  character  indelibilis  as 
respectively  the  friends  and  the  enemies  of  God.  The  world  becomes  “the 
kingdom  of  wickedness”  (niflSHn  JVD^D),  and  every  Pagan  a  “suspect” 
(TIBT1),  mere  straw  and  chaff.  Samuel  the  Little  introduced  a  curse  against 
heathens,  Christians,  &c.  (Minim  =  heretics)  into  the  “18  Benedictions” 
(Shemone  Esre).  See  Jer.  Bcrakhoth,  iv.  3  ;  Weber,  148,  64-72  ;  Zunz,  Gottesd. 
Vortrdge,  367  ;  Derenbourg,  345.  The  large-heartedness  of  R.  Johanan  to  the 
heathen  appears  from  his  explanation  of  Prov.  xiv.  10  to  mean  that  mercy  is 
the  sacrifice  which  can  be  offered  by  the  Gentiles  (Baba  Bathra,  f.  10,  2). 


70 


An  Impossible  Religion. 

might  be  used  in  building  the  altar,  was  because  the  altar  is 
the  symbol  of  peace  and  iron  of  war.  When  the  sanctuary 
was  desolate  he  taught  his  people  to  take  refuge  in  the  im¬ 
material  sanctuary  of  the  Law.  When  their  centre  of  unity 
was  destroyed  he  furnished  them  with  ‘‘the  impregnable 
centre  of  the  House  of  Interpretation ;  ’  1  when  their  walls 
had  been  laid  in  ashes  he  taught  them  that  in  place  of  ram¬ 
parts  of  marble  the  Lord  would  be  “  a  wall  of  fire  round 
about.”  2  By  accommodating  himself  to  the  altered  circum¬ 
stances  of  his  day  he  roused  the  Jews  from  the  agonising 
stupefaction  of  despair  and  made  J abne  the  heiress  of 
Jerusalem.3  He  largely  developed  a  style  of  teaching  which 
was  more  adapted  than  the  Halakha  for  the  consolation 
needed  by  such  troublous  days.4  History  presents  no  stranger 
spectacle  than  that  of  a  nation  thus  devoting  itself  to  the 
study  of  a  Ritual  of  which  much  had  been  obsolete  even  in 
the  days  of  Ezra,  but  of  which  every  essential  particular 
became,  when  Jerusalem  was  destroyed,  impossible  of  per¬ 
formance.  The  J ewish  race  has  clung  with  desperate  tenacity 
to  a  religion  local,  priestly,  and  sacrificial,  for  nearly 'two 
thousand  years  after  the  absolute  destruction  of  its  Temple, 
its  Priesthood,  and  its  Altar!  For  the  Temple  Johanan 
substituted  the  Law ;  for  the  Priesthood  the  Patriarchate ; 
for  the  House  of  Aaron  the  House  of  Hillel.  Shut  out 
from  all  political  activity,  robbed  of  all  civil  independence, 
the  Jews  were  content  to  spend  centuries  of  wrangling  discus¬ 
sion  about  Sabbatical  minutiae  and  about  the  distinctions  of 
“clean”  and  “unclean”  meats,  while  the  nobler-minded  of 
them  learnt  Johanan’ s  lesson  that  love  and  good  works  were 
an  atonement  dearer  to  the  Eternal  than  the  sacrifices  which 
they  could  no  longer  offer.5 

1  Beth  Hammidrash.  Specimens  of  Johanan’s  exegesis  are  given  in  Qiddu- 
shin,  p.  22,  &c.  See  Friedlander,  Gesch.  p.  39. 

a  Zech.  ii.  5.  a  Jost,  Judenthum ,  ii.  72. 

4  Gratz,  iv.  19  ;  R.  Eliezer  ben  Jose  developed  the  thirty-two  rules  for  the 
Haggada. 

5  On  the  great  work  of  R.  Johanan,  see  Griitz,  iv.  10-27,  322-324  ;  Deren- 
bourg,  276-302  ;  Etheridge,  55  ;  Weill,  i.  86-89  ;  Jost,  Judenthum,  13-25  ; 
Hamburger  II.  s.v.  Jochanan  Sohn  Sakai  ;  Friedlander,  Geschichtsbilder,  36- 
44.  It  is  said  that  Titus  spared  the  life  of  Gamaliel  II.  at  his  request.  In 


Aqiba. 


71 


4.  The  greatest  of  the  Tanaites  1  who  carried  on  the  work 
of  Rabbi  Johanan  ben  Zakkai,  was  the  famous  Rabbi  Aoiba 
the  systematiser  of  Rabbinism,  the  Thomas  Aquinas  of  the 
Oral  Law.  By  a  scheme  of  exorbitant  interpretation  he 
succeeded  in  making  the  Pentateuch  responsible  for  the 
gigantic  excrescences  which  had  covered  its  decaying  trunk. 
By  a  formalised  method  of  combining  possible  inferences,  and 
of  drawing  fresh  inferences  from  inferences  previously  deduced, 
he  founded  a  science  of  casuistry  to  which  the  plain  meaning 
of  the  Written  Law  became  of  less  and  less  importance.  He 
treated  the  Oral  Law,  not  as  a  body  of  fixed  results,  but  as  a 
living  and  multiplying  material.2  His  chief  master,  Rabbi 
Eliezer,  who  had  been  a  “  closed  cistern  ”  of  memorial  tradi¬ 
tionalism,  and  who  always  regarded  a  decision  as  impossible 
if  he  could  say  “  That  I  have  never  heard  ” — naturally  looked 
on  him  with  suspicion.  Many  of  the  Rabbis  indignantly 
opposed  his  subtle  extravagances  of  fantastic  exegesis. 
Applying  Hillel’s  mischievous  second  rule  that  “  identity  of 
expression  ”  always  furnished  a  valid  conclusion,  he  said  that 
in  Lev.  vii.  12,  “  unleavened  cakes  with  oil  and  unleavened 
wafers  with  oil  ”  meant  that  half  a  log  of  oil  was  to  be  used 
with  each.  “  Aqiba  ”  said  R.  Eliezer  “  you  may  say  ‘  with 
oil/  ‘with  oil/  all  day,  but  I  will  not  listen  to  you.  “Ex¬ 
pound  and  expound  all  day  long  said  R.  Jose,  the  Galilean, 
“  still  thou  canst  neither  add  to,  nor  take  from,  the  written 
word.”  “  I  can  stand  it  no  longer,  Aqiba,  ciiecl  R.  1  arplion  ? 
“  how  long  will  you  patch  things  up  in  this  arbitrary  fashion  ? 

“  Aqiba,”  exclaimed  R.  Jose  with  still  more  bitter  seventy, 


the  work  of  consolation  he  was  aided  by  R.  Joshua,  who  dissuaded  his  fellou 
Rabbis  from  giving  up  meat  and  wine,  and  devoted  himself  to  raise  then- 
courage.  “  See,”  he  said,  “  my  brothers,  Abel  was  persecuted  by  Cam,  Noah 
by  his  contemporaries,  Abraham  by  Nimrod,  Isaac  by  the  Philistines,  aco 
by  Esau,  Joseph  by  his  brethren,  Moses  by  Pharaoh,  David  by  Saul,  Israel  by 
many  nations — and  the  Merciful  God  ever  chose  the  persecuted  . 

1  Learners.  D’Wn  is  the  Chaldaic  form  of  . 

2  The  Mishna  of  Rabbi  Aqiba  is  no  longer  extant,  though  it  was  known 
to  Epiphanius.  The  Jews  distinguished  it  as  a  new  Mishna  (M.  acharona) 
as  distinguished  from  the  older  Mishna  rishona.  Among  other  helps  to 
memory  he  arranged  things  in  numbers.  “  Four  sins  deserve  death  ;  I  we 
classes  of  men  cannot  become  priests,”  &c.,  &c.  bee  1  like  Aboth  v.  mi 
Aboth  of  R.  Nathan,  xviii. 


72 


Legends  of  Aqiba. 


“how  long  wilt  thou  make  the  face  of  the  Shekhinah 
profane  V’1  R.  Ishmael,  especially,  the  author  of  the  thirteen 
rules  of  interpretation,  was  firmly  opposed  to  the  method  of 
Aqiba.  He  insisted  on  the  rule  “  the  Law  speaks  in  human 
language,”  and  that  its  terms  are  not  to  be  literally  pressed.2 

For  the  most  part,  however,  Aqiba  received  the  boundless 
admiration  of  his  countrymen.  They  wrapt  in  legend  his 
romantic  history.  They  told  how  he  was  a  Proselyte,  and  a 
descendant  of  Sisera  ;  how  love  for  Rachel,  the  daughter  of 
the  wealthy  Kalba  Shebua,  had  transformed  him  from  a 
shepherd  and  a  churl  (am  ha-arets )  into  a  Rabbi ; 3  how,  after 
twelve  years  of  learned  toil,  he  had  returned  to  claim  her, 
followed  by  12,000  disciples,  and  though  he  found  her  in 
the  abject  poverty  to  which  she  had  been  condemned  by  her 
father,  he  had  been  content  to  wait  for  another  twelve  years 
before  he  finally  returned  with  24,000  students  to  show  that 
he  was  worthy  of  her  love.  They  told  how,  in  requital  for 
her  pity  in  the  days  when  she  wept  to  pick  the  chaff  from 
his  hair  after  he  had  slept  in  the  straw  of  the  sheep-fold, 
he  gave  her  a  golden  comb  on  which  was  engraved  the  city  of 
Jerusalem.  The  wife  of  the  Patriarch  Gamaliel  had  been 
moved  to  envy  by  the  splendour  of  the  gift,  but  Gamaliel 
said  to  her,  “  Rachel  has  a  right  to  it,  for  she  once  sold  her 
hair  to  maintain  her  husband.”  4 

When  he  died  by  heroic  martyrdom,  with  the  prolonged 
word  One  (inx)  from  the  Daily  Prayer  on  his  lips,  a  “  Daughter 

1  sanhedrin,  f.  38,  2.  The  rebuke  was  given  on  a  memorable  occasion, 
when  explaining  the  word  “  thrones  ”  in  Dan.  vii.  9.  Aqiba  had  ventured  to 
say  that  one  of  the  thrones  was  for  the  Messiah.  According  to  R.  Jose,  to 
put  the  Messiah  on  a  level  with  God  was  to  render  the  Shekhinah  profane. 
See  ITershon,  Genesis,  p.  22. 

2  He  recognised  that  the  language  of  •Scripture  is  sometimes  hyperbolical 

(XOT12),  as  in  Deut.  i.  28.  He  expressed  the  rule  thus  :  min  mill 

'50i"b  The  latter  seems  to  be  the  Greek  word  i]@aid,  and  the  rule  means  that 
sometimes  a  passage  is  not  literally  true. 

3  Aqiba  confessed  to  his  disciples  that  in  his  am  haarets  days  he  would 
gladly  have  torn  a  Rabbi  with  his  teeth !  That  he  was  grateful  to  Rachel 
appears  from  his  saying  that  “he  is  rich  who  has  a  wife  full  of  good  works/’ 
Shabbath,  f.  25,  2. 

4  The  Talmud  abounds  in  references  to  Aqiba.  Pesachim,  f.  49,  2,  &c., 
quoted  by  Gratz,  Jost,  &c.  Hershon,  Genesis,  pp.  274,  275.  The  legends 
and  facts  of  his  life  may  be  gathered  from  Nedarim,  f.  50,  1  ;  Aboth  of  R. 
Nathan,  c.  6;  Shabbath,  f.  59,  2;  Jer.  Shabbath,  f.  86. 


Letter-worship.  73 

of  a  Voice  ”  was  heard  proclaiming  his  blessedness,  and  his 
pupils  bewailed  his  death  with  bitter  cries.1 

But  they  paid  him  the  yet  higher  compliment  of  adopting 
the  whole  of  his  amazing  system.2  He  taught  them,  and 
even  Christians  appear  to  have  sanctioned  his  views, — that  “  as 
a  hammer  divides  fire  into  many  sparks,  so  every  verse  of 
Scripture  has  many  explanations.”  3  How  the  saner  exegesis 
of  the  simpler  days  of  the  Sopherim  had  declared  that  “  the 
interpretation  of  the  Law  ought  never  to  go  beyond  the 
literal  sense.”  4  Aqiba,  on  the  other  hand,  expounded  the 
Pentateuch  on  the  hypothesis  that  it  was  an  immense,  inten¬ 
tional,  and  continuous  enigma.  His  principle  was  that  a 
meaning  was  to  he  found  in  every  monosyllable  of  Scripture. 
If  there  is  a  superfluous  “  and  ” 5  or  “  also,”  6  or  sign  of  case,7 
these  are  always  to  be  specially  interpreted.8  If  in  2  Kings, 
ii.  14,  it  said  of  Elisha  that  “he  also  had  smitten  the  waters,” 
it  means  that  Elisha  did  more  wonders  at  the  Jordan  than 
Elijah.  If  David  says  “  Thy  servant  slew  also 9  the  lion,  a]  so  10 
the  bear,”  the  meaning  (by  the  rule  of  “  inclusion  after  inclu¬ 
sion)”  11  is  that  he  slew  three  animals  besides.  If  it  is  written 


j  They  said  that  he  was  the  only  Rabbi  who  succeeded  in  entering  Paradise 
alive.  IVlenachoth,  f.  29,  2.  On  his  martyrdom  by  having  his  flesh  torn 
away  with  iron,  see  Berakhoth,  f.  61,  2  ;  Gratz,  iv.  177.  According  to  Bux- 
torf  ( Synag .  c.  5)  this  is  why  the  Jews,  in  reciting  the  Shema,  often  dwell  on 
the  last  1  of  “llltf  for  half  a  minute. 

2  They  combined  it  with  the  more  logical  system  of  his  friendly  rival,  R. 
Ishmael,  who  only  allowed  three  passages  in  which  eth  was  significant.  San¬ 
hedrin,  f.  51,  1  ;  Gratz,  iv.  61  ;  Jost,  Judenth.  ii.  74.  Of  the  other  Rabbis  of 
this  period,  Gamaliel  II.  was  an  organiser,  Eliezer  a  pure  traditionalist,  and 
R.  Joshua  a  via  media  scholar. 

3  See  Jer.  xxiii.  29.  This  Rabbinic  fiction  of  a  multiplex  sensus  dominated 
throughout  the  Middle  Ages,  and  down  to  very  recent  times.  It  led,  among 
other  mischievous  results,  to  what  was  known  in  the  Post-Reformation  epoch 
as  the  emphatic  style  of  exegesis.  Sanhedrin,  f.  34,  1.  In  the  tract  Sopherim 
it  is  said  that  with  the  Law  God  gave  to  Moses  ninety-eight  ways  of  explaining 
it.  (In  the  Machser  for  Pentecost,  p.  69,  ap.  Hershon,  Talmudic  Miscell.  11.) 
Sgg  Ecclns.  xxiv  29 

4  riq'C'B  n'b  NH)'  iopon  Shabbath,  f.  63,  1.  The  Rabbis 

maintain  that  the  application  of  the  thirteen  rules  does  not  make  the  Law  go 
“out  of  the  grasp  of  simplicity”  (see  Chiarini,  i.  54),  though  it  could  be 

explained  in  forty-nine,  or  even  seventy  ways  (min?  D'2E5  '¥).  Low,  p.  65. 

5  *)«.  6  dj.  7 

8  Megilla,  f.  19,  2.  This  rule  is  called  '12"),  or  “  Inclusion .”  See  Dr. 
Ginsburg,  s.v.  Midrash  in  Kitto’s  Cyclopcedia. 

9  n*  dj  10  dj.  “  11  hik  *im. 


74 


Tittle-worship. 

that  God  visited  Sarah, 1  it  means  that  with  her  He  visited 
other  barren  women.  Analogous  explanations  by  the  rule  of 
“  exclusion  ”  2  were  attached  to  every  superfluous  “  only 
and  “  from.” 4  These  might  have  been  set  aside  as  mere 
trivialities — the  dust  which  gathers  so  thickly  on  the  cere¬ 
ments  of  a  dead  religion — but  Aqiba’s  methods,  like  the  simpler 
ones  of  Hillel,  were  fraught  with  mischief.  Rabbi  Neliemiah 
of  Emmaus,  finding  the  case-sign  eth  in  the  verse  “  Thou 
shalt  fear  the  Lord  thy  God,”  5  gave  up  Aqiba’s  theory, 
because  in  this  phrase  nothing  else  but  God  could  be  implied. 
But  Aqiba,  equal  to  the  occasion,  at  once  declared  that  in 
this  instance  the  eth  implied  the  fear  due  also  to  “  the  pupils 
of  the  wise  ”  ! 6 7  Thus  in  the  system  of  the  Tanaites  “  nought 
is  everything  and  everything  is  nought.” 

But  Aqiba  went  still  farther.  He  not  only  explained  every 
particle  and  copula,  but  said  that  there  was  a  mystic  meaning 
in  every  letter  of  Scripture,  and  in  every  horn  1  and  letter- 
flourish  of  every  letter,  “just  as  in  every  fibre  of  an  ant’s 
foot  or  a  gnat’s  wing.”  8  The  Babbis  delighted  to  tell  how 

1  rnb'TlX.  2  B11PD.  3  ^  or  P‘1.  4  ?P- 

5  'rrns<.  Deut.  X.  20.  Mystic  significance  was  attached  to  the  particle 
DX,  because  the  two  letters  are  the  a  and  co  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet.  Dr. 
Ginsburg  refers  to  Rashi  on  hum.  vi.  13. 

6  Pesachim,  f.  22,  1.  For  other  instances,  see  Weber,  Altsyn.  TheoL  119. 
Aqiba  is  said  to  have  borrowed  the  notion  of  this  “  emphatic  ”  style  of  inter¬ 
pretation  from  his  teacher,  R.  Nahum  of  Gimso.  Jost,  Judcnthum,  ii.  59. 
Practically  the  same  rule  is  followed  by  Philo  (tt epirrbv  ovopa  ov De  Prof. 
458),  only  he  applied  to  ethics  and  philosophy  what  Aqiba  applied  to  the 
Halakha.  See  Gratz,  iv.  458  ;  Hershon,  Genesis,  p.  280.  When  the  pupils  of 
R.  Nehemiah  asked  what  became  of  all  his  other  explanations  of  the  case-sign 

if  the  theory  was  to  be  abandoned,  he  said,  “  As  1  have  secured  a  reward  by 

the  expositions,  so  shall  I  by  their  abandonment.’  Ihe  story  is  sometimes 

attributed  to  a  R.  Simon.  . 

7  These  icepaiai  are  such  little  horns  and  tips  of  letters  as  distinguish 
1  from  1,  2  from  3,  PI  from  n.  The  Jews  said,  If  any  one,  in  Deut.  vi.  4, 
changes  -j  into  he  shakes  the  universe,  for  he  makes  God  false  (pn«)  instead 
of  One.  If  in  Lev.  xxii.  32  he  changes  n  into  n,  he  shakes  the  universe,  for  he 

says,  “  Ye  shall  not  praise”  (l^nnH)  for  “Ye  shall  not  profane  O^nD)  the 
name  of  the  Lord.”  Vayyikra  Rabba,  f.  162,  1.  . 

8  These  signs  on  letters  are  called  “crowns”  (D'HrD,  apices ,  virgulae 
supra  litcras  notatae.  Buxtorf,  Lex.  Talm.  1111)  ;  “points’  (ITnpJ)  and 
“  thorns  ”  (D'^lp).  These  are  purely  graphic  signs.  Some  words  are  ‘ ‘  pointed 
in  the  law  (Aboth  of  R.  Nathan,  c.  33).  and  mystic  meanings  are  attached  to 
every  one  of  them.  Thus,  in  Gen.  xxxiii.  4,  we  have  inp^'l,  “  and  he  kissed 
him  ;  ”  the  points  are  explained  to  mean  that  in  kissing  him  he  tried  to  bite 
him,  but  Jacob’s  neck  was  changed  into  marble,  so  that  Esau’s  teeth  were 


Aqiba  and  Moses. 


h-  — 
10 

“  many  rules  unknown  to  Moses  were  declared  by  Aqiba.” 
In  one  Rabbinic  legend  Moses  sees  the  Holy  One  attaching 
crowns  (nnro)  to  the  letters  of  the  alphabet,  and  on  asking 
the  reason  is  informed  that  many  generations  afterwards  a 
man,  Aqiba,  was  to  arise  who  would  found  on  those  tittles 
innumerable  decisions.  Asking  to  see  him  in  vision,  Moses 
is  annoyed  by  total  inability  to  understand  him,  and  is  only 
consoled  by  hearing  him  remark,  “  This  ‘  decision 5  was  de¬ 
livered  orally  to  Moses  on  Sinai.”  1  The  Book  of  Canticles 
was  as  favourite  a  field  for  mystical  interpretation  with  the 
Tanaim  as  with  St.  Bernard  and  the  Victorines,  and  in  the 
verse  “  His  locks  are  bushy”  (Cant.  v.  11)  the  words 
vmvip)  were  explained  to  mean  that  from  every  thorn”  (pip), 
or  letter-point,  whole  “ mountains”  (pb'n)  of  “  decisions  ”  can 
be  deduced  ;  and  if  the  verse  adds  that  they  are  “  black  as  a 
raven,”  the  meaning  is  that  these  “  decisions”  will  be  developed 
by  him  who  is  dark  as  a  raven,  because  he  studies  them  from 
morning  till  evening  ! 2  In  this  region  of  futile  and  fantastic 
illusion  Aqiba  reigned  supreme.3 

Similarly,  if  in  the  sacred  text  a  letter  was  larger  or 
smaller  than  the  rest,  or  inverted,  or  suspended,  or  was 
repeated,  or  omitted,  or  presented  any  other  peculiarity,  it 
was  seized  upon  by  the  Rabbis  for  mystic  meanings.4 
The  two  Yods5  in  *1^1  (“and  He  formed,”  Gen.  ii.  7) 


blunted  (Wunsche,  Bereschith  Rabbi,  p.  383  ;  Aboth  of  R.  Nathan,  c.  34). 
In  Gen.  xix.  33,  the  1  in  Hft-lpp-l  is  pointed.  In  Nazir,  f.  23,  1,  this  is  taken 
as  indication  that  Lot  was  then  aware  of  his  sin.  Jerome  says,  “  appungunt 
desuper  quasi  incredibile.”  See  another  instance  in  Gen.  xviii.  9  (Hershon, 
p.  309).  See  the  introduction  to  Olshausen  on  the  Psalms. 

1  Menachoth,  f.  29,  2.  The  story  continues  to  say  that  Moses  exclaimed, 
“Lord  of  the  Universe  !  Thou  hast  such  a  man,  and  Thou  deliverest  the  law 
by  me  !  ”  and  is  bidden  to  be  silent  because  such  was  God’s  will.  Requesting 
to  see  Aqiba’s  reward,  he  is  shown  his  flesh  weighed  (after  his  martyrdom)  in 
the  shambles.  “  Lord  of  the  Universe  !  ”  he  cries,  “  such  learning,  and  such 
reward  !  ”  “  Be  silent,”  is  the  answer  :  “  it  is  my  will.”  See  Weil,  iii.  268  ; 
Hershon,  Genesis,  i. 

2  Midrash,  Shir  Hasshirim,  x.  11  (Wiinsche,  p.  139)  ;  ’Erubin,  f.  21,  2. 

3  Hirschfeld,  Halach.  Exegese,  §  312  ;  Weber,  Altsyn.  Theol.  117 

4  Waehner,  Antiqq.  Ebr.  i.  105. 

5  Qiddushin,  f.  30,  1  ;  Buxtorf,  Tiberias,  i.  18,  pp.  42-45.  In  Lev.  xi.  42, 
the  larger  1  in  the  word  (1113  indicates  that  it  is  the  middle  letter  of  the  Pen¬ 
tateuch,  and  the  suspended  V  of  TWD  in  Ps.  lxxx.  14,  that  it  is  the  middle 
letter  of  the  Psalms. 


76 


Fantastic  Exegesis. 


where  one  would  have  sufficed,  indicate  the  two  impulses 
— the  good  and  evil  impulses  in  man.1  The  word  “  the  in¬ 
crease/’  (nmo),  in  Is.  ix.  6,  is,  by  the  scribe’s  inadvertence, 
written  with  a  closed  or  final  Mem,  and  this  is  explained  to 
mean  that  God  meant  to  make  Hezekiah  into  the  Messiah,  and 
Sennacherib  into  Gog  and  Magog  ;  but  the  Attribute  of  Judg¬ 
ment  pleaded  that  this  would  be  unfair  to  David,  and  so  the 
counsel  was  closed.2  In  Haggai  i.  8,  “  and  I  will  be  glorified  ” 
(nmKl),  is  written  without  the  final  n ,  and  since  the  numer¬ 
ical  value  of  n  is  5,  the  omission  is  interpreted  to  mean 
that  five  things — the  Shekhinah,  the  Ark,  the  Urim  and 
Thummim,  the  sacred  fire,  and  the  Spirit  of  Prophecy — would 
be  wanting  to  the  second  Temple.3  Similarly,  if  the  article 
(n)  is  added  to  the  sixth  day  only  m  Gen.  i.  31,  it  is  to  show 
that  the  world  only  existed  conditionally  on  the  obedience  of 
Israel  to  the  Five  Books  of  Moses.  One  more  instance  will 
suffice.4  The  Rabbis  are  concerned  to  explain  the  fact  that 
in  one  of  the  alphabetic  Psalms  (Ps.  cxlv.)  there  is  no  verse 
which  begins  with  the  letter  n  (a).5  The  reason  is,  said 
Rabbi  Johanan,  because  there  is  a  verse  in  Amos  (v.  2) 
which  begins  with  this  letter,  and  predicts  the  irretrievable 
fall  of  Israel !  Sometimes  a  fantastic  change  of  reading  was 
made  the  basis  of  a  mystic  explanation.  Thus,  in  Gen.  ii.  4, 
by  a  slight  change,  for  “  when  they  were  created,”  the  Talmud 
gets  “  He  created  them  with  the  letters  n  and  i  ”  (the  two 


1  Yetser  ha-rd  and  Yetser  hattob,  Berachoth,  f.  61,  1.  Other  Rabbis  ex¬ 
plained  the  two  yods  to  refer  to  Adam  and  Eve  ;  to  earth  and  heaven  ;  to  this 
world  and  the  next.  Bereshith  Rabba  on  Gen.  ii.  7  (Wiinsche,  p.  62).  The 
Yod  which  was  taken  from  the  name  of  Sarai  was  inconsolable  till  it  was  added 
to  the  name  of  Joshua  !  Sanhedrin,  f.  107,  1. 

2  Sanhedrin,  f.  94,  1.  Probably  the  closed  D  was  due  to  a  mere  clerical 
error. 

3  Yoma,  f.  21,  2  ;  'W’aehner,  ii.  645;  Prideaux,  Connection,  i.  162-178. 

4  Shabbath,  f.  88,  1  ;  Aboda  Zara,  f.  3,  1  ;  Hershon,  p.  77.  For  further 
instances,  see  Sanhedrin,  f.  103,  2  ;  Baba  Bathra,  f.  109,  2  ;  Dopke’s  Her- 
meneutilc. 

5  Probably  the  verse  is  accidentally  lost,  for  in  the  LXX.  there  is  a  verse 
which  would  in  Hebrew  begin  with  j.  This  verse  in  Amos  was  so  disagreeable 
to  the  Rabbis  that  in  reciting  it  they  substituted  “  the  fall  [of  the  enemies ]  of 
Israel  ;  ”  or  punctuated  as  follows  :  “  The  virgin  of  Israel  is  fallen  :  she  shall 
no  more  [fall]  ;  rise.”  R.  Nachman  bar  Isaac  thinks  that  in  prophetic  reference 
to  this  verse,  David  wrote  “  The  Lord  upholdeth  all  them  that  fall." 


BarJcoJchba. 


77 


letters  of  His  name,  Jali),  and  proceeds  to  explain  that  the 
reason  for  creating  this  world  with  n  was  because  that  letter 
resembles  a  porch,  to  indicate  how  easy  it  is  to  go  out  and 
plunge  into  vice  ;  but  there  is  an  opening  at  the  top  of  the 
letter  to  show  that  repentance  will  readmit  the  wanderer  from 
above.1  The  world  to  come  was  formed  with  the  little  letter 
'  to  show  how  few  should  be  saved.2 

In  exegesis  of  this  kind  indefinitely  multiplied,  the  great 
Rabbi  spent  his  days.3  The  unhappy  fate  which  fell  upon 
him,  the  ruin  which  he  helped  to  precipitate  upon  his 
country  is  a  proof  of  the  very  small  amount  of  insight  which 
such  methods  of  handling  Scripture  were  likely  to  produce. 
In  some  of  his  decisions — for  instance  in  the  intense  rigidity 
ol  his  rules  about  hand-washing,  and  the  gross  laxity  of  his 
views  about  divorce— it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  he  was  not 
actuated  by  a  direct  spirit  of  antagonism  to  Christianity.4 
It  may  have  been  partly  from  this  reason  that  he  openly 
adopted  the  claims  to  Messiahship  put  forth  by  the  impostor 
Barkokhba,  and  we  can  but  hope  that  he  did  not  inflame  the 
fanatical  hatred  which  made  that  false  Messiah  the  sanguinary 
peisecutor  of  the  Christians.  But  m  any  case  the  Nemesis 
of  the  outraged  letter  fell  upon  him.  In  the  passionate 
desire  to  protect  Judaism  from  the  new  religion,  he  became 


1  Menachotlq  f.  29,  2  ;  Hershon,  Genesis,  p.  92. 

2  See  Is.  xxvi.  4,  (rendered),  “  For  with  Jah  Jehovah  formed  the  world.” 
B  nj^dern  Jewish  Liturgy  the  Ineffable  Name  is  usually  written 

with  two  lods  O');  in  the  Liturgy  of  the  Karaites  it  is  written  with  three 
letters  ('V). 

■  ^Ve  PreceP^s  which  he  gave  to  R.  Simon  ben  Jochai  in  prison  are 
neither  very  valuable,  nor  very  original,  viz.— 1.  If  you  would  hang  yourself, 
choose  a  high  tree  ( i.e .  appeal  to  high  authorities  for  unpleasant  decisions). 
2.  leach  your  son  from  books  which  do  not  require  correction.  3.  Do  not 
marry  a  widow.  4.  Unite  good  work  with  personal  profit.  5.  Combine  grati¬ 
fication  with  purity.  Pesachim,  f.  112,  1.  For  four  of  his  sayings  see  Aboth, 
m.  10-13.  ’ 

11c  followed  Hillel,  for  instance,  into  the  extreme  of  laxity  in  interpreting 
the  famous  ervath  dabar  (“matter  of  uncleanness,”  Deut.  xxiv.  1).  Hillel 
had  said  that  a  man  might  divorce  his  wife  if  she  burned  his  food  ;  Aqiba  in 
extreme  antagonism  to  Christianity,  said  “even  if  he  saw  some  woman  who 
pleased  him  better.  Gittin,  f.  90,  1.  Modern  Jews  explain  away  this  passage. 

ost,  Judenthum,  i.  264.  Aqiba  s  scrupulosity  about  ablutions,  and  insistence 
°.n  b"e  unity  God,  even  with  his  dying  breath,  probably  had  a  polemical 
significance.  See  Jost,  Judenthum,  ii.  62. 


78 


Fate  of  Aqiba. 


the  strange  Elias  of  a  ferocious  and  nameless  rebel.1  He 
hailed  Barkokhba  as  the  Star  of  Balaam’s  vision,  as  the  pro¬ 
mised  Deliverer  of  Israel  ;  nor  would  he  heed  the  warning 
of  the  less  impetuous  Rabbis,  who  said,  “  Aqiba,  the  grass 
shall  grow  out  of  thy  jaws,  and  yet  the  Messiah  will  not  have 
come.”  There  was  nothing  which  could  save  Aqiba  or  his 
nation,  either  morally  or  intellectually,  amid  their  idolism  of 
esoteric  pedantry,  which,  passing  itself  off  as  a  comment  on 
the  law,  treated  it  practically  as  a  field  for  the  display 
of  casuistry.  Aqiba  died  at  a  very  advanced  age,  the  brave 
martyr  of  an  ignoble  cause,  and  in  the  blood-stained 
ruins  of  Bether2  not  only  the  schools  of  the  Rabbis,  but 
the  Jewish  race  itself,  seemed  to  be  smitten  once  moie 
into  irretrievable  ruin  by  the  iron  hand  of  Rome.  Had 
Aqiba  been  trained  in  truer  and  nobler  methods,  he  might 
not  have  committed  the  gross  error  of  confusing  a  Barkoziba 
with  a  Barkokhba— the  “  son  of  a  lie  ”  with  the  “  son  of  a 


star.”  3 

5.  Yet  once  more  Judaism  rose  from  the  ashes  in  which 
it  seemed  to  have  been  consumed.  “On  the  day  that 
R  Aqiba  died,”  says  Mar,  “  Rabbi  was  born ;  on  the  day 
when  Rabbi  died  Rav  was  born  ;  on  the  day  when  Rav  died 
Rava  was  born ;  on  the  day  when  Rava  died  R.  Ashi  was 
born.  The  sun  rises  and  the  sun  goes  down.”  4  Before  the 
ten  martyr  Rabbis  of  the  rebellion  had  died  they  had 


1  Jewish  revolts  of  the  most  sanguinary  character  had  broken  out  in 
Cyprus,  Egypt,  Cvrene,  and  Babylonia,  and  it.  has  been  conjectured  that 
Aqiba’ s  extensive  travels  may  have  had  something  to  do  with  them.  Jost, 
Judenth.  ii.  66.  On  Barkokhba’s  rebellion  see  Dion  Cass.  lxix.  12-14  , 
Gratz,  iv.  157-197.  His  name  was  Simon,  and  if  Bar  Koziba  was  his  real 

name  it  may  mean  that  he  was  born  at  Kezib.  . 

2  B iedvpa,  Euseb.  E.  E.  iv.  6.  Now  Belter  six  miles  S.S.W.  of  Jerusalem. 

Williams  Eoly  City,  i.  209.  _  .  Tncq 

3  On  Aqiba  and  his  work,  see  Gratz,  iv.  53-66  148-166  427-431 ,  Jost, 

Judenthum,  ii.  59-83  ;  Derenbourg,  c.  xxiv  ;  Hunk,  BMme,  6^.  ’ 
Etheridge,  Hebr .  Lit.  66-76;  Hamburger  II.  s  v.] Bar  Kochba  ,  . Mill nan. 
Mist,  of  the  Jews,  ii.  bk.  xviii.  ;  Friedlander,  Geschiehtsbilder,  pp.  68  , 
Frankel,  Zeitschr.  iii.  &c.  ;  and  the  numerous  interesting  particulars  of  his 
life  in  Mr.  Ilershon’s  Genesis,  and  other  Talmudic  collections.  His  anticipa¬ 
tion  of  the  Mishna  is  mentioned  by  Epiphanius  and  he  is  alluded  to  t>y 

Jerome,  In  Eccl.  iv.  13.  .  ..  ,  ,  . 

4Ecc.  i.  5  ;  Qiddushin,  f.  72.  2.  The  assertion  is  not  historically  true,  but 

represents  the  idea  of  the  Rabbinic  succession. 


Rabbi  Juda. 


79 


conferred  ordination  on  successors  who  retired  to  Ussa. 
Among  these  successors  were  men  so  eminent  as  Rabbi 
Simeon  ben  Jochai,  the  master  of  the  Qabbala,  the  legendary 
author  of  the  Zohar ;  Rabbi  Meir,  the  casuist,1  who,  re¬ 
joicing  in  the  Haggada,  could  tell  no  less  than  300  stories 
about  foxes,  and  the  touch  of  whose  very  staff  was  enough 
to  make  a  pupil  wise ;  and  Rabbi  Nathan,  the  author  of  the 
celebrated  “  Sayings  ”  which  go  by  his  name.  They  chose  as 
their  Patriarch  Simon,  the  son  of  Gamaliel  II.,  who  had  been 
saved  as  a  schoolboy  from  the  massacre  of  Bether.  When 
the  schools  of  Jabne  were  finally  broken  up  through  the 
passionate  imprudence  which  led  Simon  ben  Jochai  to  burst 
into  an  invective  against  the  Romans,  the  new  Patriarch 
removed  about  A.D.  166  to  Tiberias,  which  became,  for  many 
years,  the  metropolis  of  Rabbinism.  He  was  succeeded  by 
his  son,  R.  Juda.  A  man  often  shows  his  true  greatness  by 
recognising  that  the  change  of  times  requires  the  change  of 
institutions,  and  by  rejecting  restrictions  which  have  ceased 
to  be  tenable.  This  was  the  case  with  Rabbi  Juda.  Down 
to  his  time  the  traditions  of  the  Fathers  had  never  been  put 
into  writing.2  A  collection  by  Rabbi  Chija  was  known  as 
Megillath  Sethcirim ,  or  “  secret  roll.”  3  It  had  been  a  rule  of 
the  Rabbis  that  what  had  been  delivered  orally  was  only  to 
be  retained  by  the  memory.  That  rule  was  founded  on  the 
principle  that  circumstances  change,  and  therefore  that  oral 
decisions  ought  not  to  be  regarded  as  final  precedents.4  By 
this  time,  however,  it  had  become  an  impossibility  to  retain 
a  mass  of  precedents  so  heterogeneous  and  so  immense  as 
those  which  had  been  accumulated  from  the  days  of  Ezra  to 
those  of  Aqiba.  Accordingly  Rabbi  Juda,  for  the  first  time, 
committed  to  writing  the  Oral  Law,  arranged  under  the  six 

1  See  Gratz,  iv.  193,  195,  237,  470.  Symmachos,  the  Greek  translator,  was 
one  of  his  pupils. 

-  Josephus  and  Philo  refer  to  it  as  TrapaSocris  ay pa<pos,  and  rS>v  TvaTepccu 
SiaSox'f].  In  Matt.  xv.  2-6  the  Oral  Law  is  called  -jrapadSais  ruv  -irpea&vTepwv 
(comp.  Mark  vii.  3-13).  St.  Paul  pointedly  speaks  of  “  the  tradition  of  men,” 

Col.  ii.  8  (nuxn  miDO). 

3  Gittin,  f.  60,  2.  These  wu’itten  notes  were  meant  to  be  mere  private 
memoranda  for  the  teacher’s  own  use. 

4  Hurwitz.  For  the  rule  see  Low,  p.  59. 


80 


The  Mishna. 


orders  of  Hillel’s  classification.  By  this  sensible  innovation 
he  earned  such  gratitude  that  he  is  always  called  the  Holy, 
or  “  the  Prince,”  or  “  Our  Master,”  or  simply  and  emphatically 
by  the  mere  title  Rabbi,  as  though  no  other  were  worthy  to 
be  compared  with  him.1 

His  compilation  was  called  “  The  Mishna,”  “  learning,”  or 
“Repetition,”  from  Shanah  (tana),  “to  learn,”  or  “repeat.” 
It  acquired  an  influence  truly  secular.  It  summed  up  the 
labours  of  four  centuries.2  The  Oral  Law  3  had  been  recog¬ 
nised  by  Ezra;  had  become  important  in  the  days  of  the 
Maccabees  ;  had  been  supported  by  Pharisaism  ,  nariov  ed  by 
the  school  of  Shammai ;  codified  by  the  school  of  Hillel ; 
systematised  by  R.  Aqiba ;  placed  on  a  logical  basis  by  R. 
Ishmael  ; 4  exegetically  amplified  by  R.  Eliezer ;  and  con¬ 
stantly  enriched  by  successive  Rabbis  and  theii  schools. 
Rabbi  put  the  coping-stone  to  the  immense  structure. 
Thenceforth  the  Mishna  moulded  the  entire  theology  and 
philosophy  of  Judaism.  The  publication  of  Tradition  put 
an  end  to  the  independent  energy  of  the  Halakha,  and 
closed  the  long  succession  of  the  Tanaim.  They  were 
followed  by  a  new  race,  the  Amoraim,  who  were  rather 
commentators  than  originators.  The  Mishna  became  the 
bond  of  Jewish  nationality.  It  put  an  end  to  the  Patriarch- 


1  Hakkodesh,  Hannasi,  Rabbenu,  Rabbi  Rabba.  Although  Rabbi’s  viola¬ 

tion  of  the  accepted  rule  (Gittin,  f.  60)  is  quite  defensible,  the  same  cannot 
be  said  of  the  distorted  exegesis  by  which  it  was  defended.  1  his  was  by 
making  Ps.  cxix.  126  (“  It  is  time  for  thee,  Lord,  to  lay  to  thine  hand,  for  they 
have  destroyed  thy  law”)  mean  “When  we  work  for  God  we  may  break  His 
law.”  See  BeraJchoth,  f.  69,  with  Rashi’s  comment.  Idols  are  subservient 
things,  and  when  men  make  an  idol  of  a  dead  letter,  they  are  never  at  a  loss 
to  treat  it  as  a  thing  subservient  to  themselves.  „ 

2  Mishna  (tievrepuais,  Epiphan. )  is  derived  from  W,  not  from  Iw,  the 
repeated.”  Thus  Deuteronomy  is  called  “  Mishncch  Thorcch.  The  names 
Mikra  (what  is  read)  for  scripture  and  Mishna  for /tradition  are  ancient,  bee 

Gratz,  iv.  419-422  ;  Deutsch,  Remains,  p.  17. 

3  First  collected  by  R.  Aqiba,  enlarged  by  his  pupil,  R.  Meir,  and  final  y 
published  by  Rabbi  (see  Epiphan.  Eacr.  i.  2,  9).  It  consists  of  HilieJ  s  six 
orders  ( Sedarim ),  sixty-three  tractates  (. Massiktoth ),  and  524  chapters.  Rabbi 
unfairly  suppressed  the  names  of  R.  Nathan  and  R.  Meir,  because  they  once 
tried  to  undermine  the  haughty  authority  of  Rabbis  father,  R.  Simeon  11 J. 
R.  Nathan  is  quoted  by  the  formula  “some  say,”  and  Meir s  decisions 
are  alluded  to  by  the  formula  “  others  say  ”  (D'HttIK  CHPIX).  See  Waelmer, 
i.  283.  The  additional  collections  of  R.  Chija,  Bar  Kappara,  &c.,  were  called 
Toscfta,  which  consists  of  fifty-two  treatises  and  383  chapters.  ^Lbw,  p.  77. 

4  In  his  famous  thirteen  rules.  See  Friedliinder,  l.c.  pp.  76-79. 


81 


The  Work  of  Rabbi. 


ate,  of  which  it  was  the  child.  It  completed  that  “hedge 
around  the  law”  which  henceforth  neither  persecution 
nor  dispersion  could  destroy,  and  through  which  neither 
Hellenism,  nor  Sadduceeism,  nor  Alexandrianism,  nor  Gnos¬ 
ticism,  nor  Christianity,  nor  the  Renaissance,  nor  the  Refor¬ 
mation,  nor  modern  scepticism,  down  to  the  days  of  Moses 
Mendelssohn,  could  break  their  way.  This  strange  collection 
of  completed  and  dead  “  decisions,”  being  treated  as  of  divine 
authority,  superseded,  all  but  entirely,  the  Scriptures  on 
which  they  professed  to  have  been  based.1  The  bold  initia¬ 
tive  of  Rabbi  stamped  on  J udaism  a  character  singularly  dry 
and  juristic,  and  laid  upon  the  necks  of  all  Talmudic  Jews  a 
yoke  unspeakably  more  empty  and  indefinitely  more  galling 
than  that  of  which  St.  Peter  had  complained  even  in  days 
when  the  observance  of  Mosaism  had  not  yet  been  rendered 

impossible  by  the  fiat  of  History,  which  is  the  manifest 
will  of  God.2 


6.  Rabbi  died  a.d.  200.3  The  Talmudists  tell  endless  stories 
of  his  wealth,  his  greatness,  his  friendship  with  the  Roman 
Emperor  whom  they  call  Antoninus.  But  he  left  no  adequate 
successor.  W ith  his  death  the  splendour  of  the  Patriarchate 
at  once  declined.  The  scholastic  labours  and  discussions  of 
Amoraim  (a.d.  200-500)  resulted  in  the  Jerusalem  Talmud, 
which  discusses  four  only  of  the  six  Mishnaic  orders.4  The 


1  Pea,  ii.  5  ;  Yaddaim,  iv.  3  ;  Aboth,  ad  init. 

2  Thus  there  is  an  entire  treatise  of  the  Mishna  about  mingled  seeds,  with 

dlS^Usslfons  about  agriculture,  which  the  Jews  have  ceased  to  practise 
for  thousands  of  years  ;  and  this  is  only  one  of  many  treatises  which  deal  with 
details  concerning  sacrifices  and  Temple  measurements  which  for  ages  have 
ceased  to  have  the  slightest  meaning.  It  should,  however,  be  said  that 
Rabbi  s  innovations  were  all  on  the  side  of  greater  leniency.  See  Chulin  f 

tW  qU°ted  by  iDr'  GrbU?>  S'V‘  Jelmdal1’  BkL  °f  Christian  Biogr.).  He 

nentL  F^on? nf 1 i'w  Hezeklah’  wbo  broke  in  P^ces  the  brazen  ser¬ 
pent.  I  oi  one  of  his  noblest  sayings,  see  Aboth,  ii.  1. 

1m  0n  tbe  life  and  work  of  Rabbi,  see  Gratz,  iv.’  210;  Friedlander,  pp.  96- 

101  If  he  was  triendly  with  any  emperor,  it  may  have  been  L. Verus 

f^h0Rt7hSht\  ?Ca  k'  w  had  lie!tbcr  “sPeaker”  (chaJcam)  nor  Deputy 
J  V  ^\ih  Pin\n^Q}'  blm>  bul  was  “  the  first  spiritual  autocrat.” 

the  Jerusha  mi  represents  traditionalism  rather  than  development  and 

beT  1SJess  ued;  ,  )\ltb  the  Targums  of  Onqelos  and  BenUzziel’  the 
Mishna,  Tosephta,  Mekhiltha,  Siphra,  Siphri,  and  Pesikhtha,  together  with 

the0 Pri m ^  v°  Trarf' t*-0 US’  ^'Sd0m’  T°,bit’  and  the  books  of  Maccabees,  it  forms 
the  Inmary  Tiadition.  Ihe  secondary  strata  of  tradition  are  found  in  the 

larg.  of  Ps.  Jonathan,  the  Babli,  and  the  Midrashim. 


G 


82 


The  Talmud, 


Gemara,  or  “  completion,”  which,  with  the  Mishna,  makes  up 
the  Babylonian  Talmud  1  in  its  complete  form — the  Babli  of 
which  the  Jews  speak  with  such  enthusiastic  affection  was 
completed  and  systematised  mainly  by  Rabbi  Ash!,  who  died 
in  a.d.  427.1 2  The  Talmud  was  finally  closed  in  A.D.  490,  by 
Rabbina  Abina,  the  last  of  the  Amoraim.  It  contains  the 
long  studies  and  discussions  of  the  Jewish  schools,  “the  fierce 
lightnings  which  shook  the  rafters  of  Nehardea,  Sora,  and 
Pumbeditha.3  In  the  work  of  the  Palestinian  and  Baby¬ 
lonian  academies,  Edzard  sees  the  fulfilment  of  Zechanah  s 
vision  of  the  flying  roll.4  The  Gentiles  possessed  the  Law  in 
Greek,  but  in  the  Mishna  and  Gemara  the  Jews  boasted  that 
they  possessed  the  secret,  without  which  the  Law  was  value¬ 
less.  They  openly  made  more  use  of  the  Talmud  than  of 
the  Bible,  preferring  their  broken  cisterns  to  the  waters  that 
spring  from  the  living  rock. 

7.  It  is  no  part  of  my  purpose  to  glance  at  the  farther 
labours  of  the  Saboraim  (a.d.  500-650),  and  the  Gaonim  ;5  or 
to  follow  the  devious  stream  of  mediaeval  Rabbinism.6  What¬ 
ever  may  have  been  the  special  services  to  J ewish  theology 


1  Talmud.,  “Learning,”  or  “Teaching.”  See  Bartolocci,  Bibl.  Babb.  iii. 
359.  The  commonest  "edition  of  the  Talmud  is  that  of  Bomberg  (Venice, 
1520)  in  twelve  folio  volumes,  but  the  Amsterdam  edition  is  of  special 
importance  because  it  is  unexpurgated. 

-  The  so-called  Yerushalmi  at  present  only  has  Gemara  to  less  than  two- 
thirds  of  the  Mishna  ;  but  Dr.  Schiller-Szinessy  has  published  some  argu¬ 
ments  to  prove  that  it  once  extended  over  all  the  Six  Sedarim.  The  Babli  has 
been  the  favourite  of  the  Jews,  owing  perhaps  to  that  fierceness  with  which  it 
was  persecuted,  but  scholars  now  generally  incline  to  the  view  that  the 
Yerushalmi  is  “in  every  way  superior  to  it  in  age,  in  conciseness,  in  lucidity, 
in  the  value  of  its  contents.”  See  Dr.  Schiller-Szinessy,  Occasional  Notices, 

i.  p.  i.  ...  . 

3  Nehardea  was  on  a  canal  (Nahar)  which  joined  the  Euphrates  to  the  Tigris. 
Sora  was  on  the  Euphrates.  The  school  there  was  founded  by  Rav  (It.  Abba 
Arekka),  who  wrote  or  edited  the  Siphra  and  Siphri,  and  died  in  243.  Pumbe¬ 
ditha  means  “  the  mouth  of  the  canal.”  On  these  schools  and  their  teachers, 
see  Fiirst,  Kultur-gesch.  pp.  63-197. 

4  Zech.  v.  1-4  ;  Pref.  to  Berakhoth  ;  see  Chiarini,  ii.  41. 

5  Saboraim,  “  investigators,”  from  Sabar,  “to  observe.”  Gaonim,  “excel¬ 
lent,”  was  the  title  taken  by  the  heads  of  the  college  at  Sora,  and  Rabbanim 
by  those  at  Pumbeditha.  See  Maimonides,  Pref.  to  Yad  Hachazaka. 

6  Gratz  divides  this  period  into  that  of  scientific  Rabbinism  in  Spain  (1040- 
1230),  and  one-sided  Rabbinism  down  to  Moses  Mendelssohn  (1230-1780). 
See  the  Excursus. 


Mediaeval  Rabbis. 


83 


of  Rashi  tlie  “  Exegete;”  of  Ibn  Ezra;1  of  Maimonides,  “  the 
Eagle  of  the  Rabbis/' 2  and  “  the  Light  of  the  West ;  ”  3 4 
of  Simeon  Haddarshan  ; 4  of  the  Qimchis,  David  and 
Moses  ;  5  of  Abrabanel  ; 6  and  of  others — these  all  of  them 
continue  the  essential  principles  of  Rabbinic  exegesis,  al¬ 
though  in  forms  more  scientific  and  philosophical.  Maimo- 
nides  may  indeed  be  regarded  as  the  founder  of  Jewish 
Rationalism,  the  first  who  strove  to  harmonise  science 
with  religion.  As  such  he  was  anathematised  by  his 
stricter  countrymen.  But  it  is  not  till  the  days  of  Moses 
Mendelssohn  that  a  breath  of  true  renovation  begins  to 
pass  over  the  valley  in  which  for  so  long  a  period  the 
bones  had  been  so  dry.  Nor  again  will  it  be  possible  here  to 
speak  of  the  Karaites  7 — those  Protestants  of  Judaism — who 
from  the  days  of  Anan  ben  David  have  exercised  a  powerful 
influence,  but  who,  rejecting  the  Talmud,  and  maintaining 
the  sole  authority  of  Scripture,  have  worked  for  the  most 
part  outside  the  sphere  of  acknowledged  Judaism.8 

IV.  But  it  is  now  time  to  ask,  What  is  the  main  result 
of  these  many  centuries  of  Rabbinic  exegesis,  beginning 
practically  with  the  first  prominence  of  the  Oral  Law  in 
the  age  of  Ezra  (b.c,  457),  and  continuing  almost  unaltered 
to  the  days  of  Moses  Mendelssohn  (a.d.  1780)  ? 


1  See  Buxtorf,  Be  Abbreviaiuris ,  p.  170.  “  Parshandatha,”  was  explained 

to  mean  “  interpreter  of  the  law.”  He  died  A.D.  1102.  He  commented  on 
the  entire  Old  Testament.  His  comments  on  grammar,  and  the  literal 
sense  were  full  of  value,  hut  he  follows  the  Talmud  and  the  Midrashim. 

2  Ibn  Ezra,  horn  at  Toledo,  a.d.  1092,  died  in  Rome,  1167.  He  is  a  Tal¬ 
mudist,  but  with  some  Karaite  leanings. 

3  Rambam.  R.  Moses  ben  Maimon,  bom  at  Cordova,  1135,  died  in 
Palestine,  1204.  “From  Moses  to  Moses  no  one  has  risen  like  Moses.”  He 
was  not  a  professed  commentator,  but  his  Moreh  Nevochim  and  Yad  Hacha- 
zaka  are  full  of  exegetical  remarks.  His  comparatively  free  attitude  towards 
the  Talmud  offended  many  Jews.  “  He  was  the  speculative  parent  of  Spinoza 
and  of  Mendelssohn.”  Milman,  iii.  151. 

4  Author  of  the  Jalqut  Shimconi,  a  Midrashic  commentary  on  the  Old 

Testament. 

6  David  Qimchi’s  comments  are  chiefly  grammatical.  The  grammar  of 

Moses  Qimchi  ( BarJci  Lcslwn  HakJcodesh,  Way  to  the  Holy  Language)  was  of 
great  use  to  the  early  Humanists  and  Reformers.  The  Jews  said  of  David’s 
labours,  “No  law  without  the  miller”  ( qucmach ),  playing  on  the  name 
Qimchi.  6  Don  Isaac  Abrabanel,  born  1436,  died  1507. 

7  They  are  said  to  date  from  the  days  of  Shemaia,  the  colleague  of  Abtalion. 

Gratz,  iv.  5.  8  See  Excursus  on  the  Karaites. 

G  2 


84 


The  Halakha. 


Setting  aside  the  valuable  services  of  the  Massorets  to 
textual  criticism,1  the  main  contributions  cf  Rabbinism  to 
the  exegesis  of  the  Old  Testament  are  found  in  the  Targums, 
in  the  Talmud,  and  in  the  Midrashim.  These  contain  the 
sum  total  of  Jewish  enlightenment,  on  the  subject  of  Scrip¬ 
ture  for  hundreds  of  years,  and  though  their  authority  is  now 
more  or  less  denied  by  the  more  liberal  schools  of  Jewish 
thought,  they  still  form  the  basis  of  interpretation  among 
multitudes  of  foreign  synagogues  all  over  the  world. 

All  that  is  exegetical  in  this  immense  cyclopaedia  of  Jewish 
literature  falls  under  the  three  heads  of  the  Halakba,  the 
Haggada,  and  the  Qabbala. 

i.  The  word  Halakha  means  “Decision/’ norm,  systematised 
legal  precept.  It  is  a  Rabbinic  word,  derived  from  halakh,  to 
walk.  It  is  used  to  express  the  accepted  conclusion  arrived 
at  after  discussion,  and  to  be  followed  in  practice  as  a  supple¬ 
ment  to  the  provisions  of  the  Written  Law.2 

The  Mishna  is  all  but  exclusively  composed  of  these 
decisions.  It  defines  all  matters  of  civil  and  religious 
interest  for  the  Jews.  It  may  be  regarded  as  the  corpus 
juris  of  Judaism.  As  exegesis  it  is  nearly  valueless.  The 
very  rules  by  which  it  was  developed,  the  very  principles 
on  which  it  was  founded,  were,  as  we  have  partly  seen, 
fantastic  and  untenable ;  nay,  in  many  essential  instances 
subversive  of  the  most  sacred  principles  of  the  Mosaic 
legislation.  Nothing  is  more  .  certain  than  that  the  mass 

1  On  the  Massorah,  see-  Etheridge,  205  :  Ginsburg,  Elias  Lcvita,  pp.  101, 
102,  120,  121.  They  applied  to  it  Cant.  iii.  8  (it  was  regarded  as  a  sword  to 
defend  the  law).  Comp.  Rashi,  ad  loc.  and  Aboth,  iii.  13.  For  lists  of  the 
words  written  with  majnscnlar  letters,  see  Ginsburg’ s  Elias  Levita,  p.  230.  He 
does  not  admit  Mr.  Black’s  theory  that  they  form  a  chronogram. 

2  In  Ex.  xxi.  1,  the  Targums,  both  of  Onqelos  and  Jon.  ben  Uzziel,use  the  word 

Halakha,  as  the  equivalent  of  In  Aramaic  it  is  Hilkheta 

which  in  Baal  Aruc  is  defined  as  “  res  quae  it  et  venit  ab  initio  usque  ad  finem.  ’ 
Buxtorf  defines  Halakha  as  “  constitutio  juris,  sententia,  decisio,  traditio 
decisa,  .  .  .  secundum  quam  incedendum  et  vivendum .”  Lex.  Talm.  s.v. 

rD7PI.  where  he  renders  it  Ein  Endurtheil.  For  a  classification  of  Halakhoth, 
see  Maimonides,  Pref.  to  the  explanation  of  the  Mishna  ;  Chiarini,  i.  174  ; 
Etheridge,  178.  The  Mishna  consists  of:  1.  Halakhoth.  2.  Midrash— the 
development  of  Halakhoth  by  exegetic  rules.  3.  Talmud  in  narrower  sense — • 
fresh,  argumentative  applications.  It  has  525  chapters,  4,187  paragraphs. 


Futile  Inferences. 


85 


of  precepts  in  tlie  Mosaic  law  are  of  obvious  import,  and 
were  intended  to  be  understood  in  tbeir  plain  and  literal 
sense.1  The  Rabbis  themselves,  in  their  more  sober  moods, 
admitted  this.2  Yet  such  an  admission  was  opposite  to  their 
habitual  practice.  We  find  Rabbi  Juda  saying,  “He  that 
renders  a  verse  of  Scripture  as  it  appears  ( 'i.e .  literally)  says 
what  is  not  true.  He  who  adds  to  it,”  he  continues,  “  is  a 
blasphemer.  Yet  the  additions  which  the  Rabbis  made  to 
it  multiplied  its  bulk  a  thousandfold,  and  that  with  the  most 
frivolous  minutiae.  Rabbi  Eliezer  glorified  himself  because 
he  could  deliver  300  Halakhoth  about  Egyptian  cucumbers,3 
and  there  were  300  undisputed  Halakhoth  about  “the  tower 
that  floats  m  the  air.”  4  Nay,  even  Onqelos  and  the  Septua- 
gmt  translators  are  admitted  to  have  made  both  additions 
and  alterations.5  The  Rabbis  were  not  at  a  loss  to  account 
for  these  facts.  The  Halakhoth,  they  said,  were  a  part  of  the 
Oi  al  Law  delivered  to  Moses  on  Sinai.5  Like  the  ever-widen- 
ing,  yet  ever-fainter,  circle  on  the  broken  surface  of  a  lake, 
the  lipples  of  an  indefinitely  expanded  legalism  spread  long 
aftei  all  tiace  of  the  first  waves  had  died  away. 

Once  in  the  school  of  Tiberias  the  pupils  of  Rabbi  Eliezer 
and  of  Rabbi  Jose  fell  into  a  fierce  quarrel  about  the  lawful¬ 
ness  of  using  on  the  Sabbath  a  bolt  with  a  knob.  The 
former  said  it  might  not  be  used  ;  the  latter  said  it  might  be 
used,  since  it  was  lawful  on  the  Sabbath  to  use  a  bolt  with  a 
knob  to  mash  garlic.  In  their  rage  they  actually  tore  asunder 
a  roll  of  the  Law.7  The  roll  of  the  Law  was  to  all  intents 
and  purposes  torn  asunder  daily  in  the  disputes  of  the 
Rabbis.  The  foolish  questionings,  strifes,  “legal  battles,” 
(>dy<u  vofurcal,  Tit.  iii.  9),  and  “  word-fightings  ”  (\oy0/ud%^, 
1  Tim.  vi.  4),  about  which  St.  Paul  speaks,  furnish  us  with 


1  Deut.  xxv.  11-14. 

2  See  Ohiarini,  i.  54,  quoting  Shabbath,  f.  63,  1. 

3  Sanhedrin,  f.  68,  1. 

4  Sanhedrin,  £106,  Vefe.rring  t0  Is-  xxxiil  18>  “Where  is  he  who 
counted  the  towers  ?  See  Rashi,  ad  loc. 

0  Megilla,  f.  3,  1  ;  f.  9,  1. 

Oiddu'shliT 7  49nid  the  ’J’D0  n3’n’  Balakha  le-Moshesh  Misdnai, 

Yebamoth,  f.  96,  2.  See  Rashi  on  Eccl.  ix.  17. 


86 


Contradictions. 


the  closest  description  of  what  went  on  in  the  Jewish  schools. 
For  although  the  “  decisions  ”  were  set  even  above  Scripture  ; 1 2 
though  God  Himself  is  represented  as  repeating  them  in  the 
names  of  the  Rabbis  from  whom  they  had  emanated , 
though  heaven  is  described  as  an  academy  in  which  the 
angels  play  the  part  of  the  “  associates  ;  though  we  are  told 
with  frank  blasphemy  that  the  soul  of  a  Rabbi  was  sum 
moned  to  decide  when  the  Supreme  and  the  -A.ngels  wei  e 
taking  opposite  sides  in  a  question  about  leprosy ;  though 
not  even  such  miracles  as  the  pillars  of  the  room  bending  at 
a  word,  and  a  caroub-tree  plucked  up  by  the  roots,  and  water 
running  up  hill,  and  even  an  utterance  of  the  Bath  Qol, 
are  sufficient  to  establish  a  “  decision  ”  against  the  majority 
of  the  Rabbis  ; 3  though  the  most  tremendous  curses  are  pro¬ 
nounced  against  those  who  resist  such  a  decision,4  yet  there 
was  scarcely  a  single  Rabbinic  precept  about  which  there 
were  not  eager  and  sometimes  even  savage  dissensions. 
There  were,  for  instance,  numberless  disagreements  between 
the  schools  of  Hillel  and  Shammai,  and  the  Rabbis  had  to 
come  to  the  futile  conclusion,  that  opposite  decisions  are 
equally  the  word  of  God.5  Yet  the  Talmudists  themselves 

1  Baba  Metsi’a,  f.  331.  In  Gittin,  f.  60,  2,  this  is  argued  from  Ex.  xxxiv. 

27.  “  For  after  the  tenor  (lit.  *  upon  the  mouth  ’)  of  these  words  have  I  made 

a  covenant  with  Israel.”  On  Rabbinic  modifications  of  special  laws  see 
Castelli,  La  Legge  (1884)  ;  Salschutz,  Her  mosaische  Becht,  and  Edersheim, 
Proph.  and  Hist.  pp.  384-391. 

2  In  Pesiktha  of  R.  Kahana,  f.  40,  1.  Moses  ascending  heaven  hears  the 
Holy  One  reading  the  Parasha  about  the  Red  Heifer,  and  repeating  the  Halakha 
about  it  in  the  name  of  R.  Eliezer.  So  too  Bammidbar  Babba,  c.  19.  Stories 
still  more  shocking  to  our  views  are  found  in  Shemoth  Babba,  cc.  30  and  43. 
Vayyikra  Babba,  c.  19  (Weber,  18,  19). 

3  See  the  remarkable  story  in  Baba  Metsia,  f.  59,  2.  The  miracle  worker 
was  the  excommunicated  R.  Eliezer.  An  Halakha  was  sometimes  left  un¬ 
certain  with  the  formula,  IpTl.  which  is  explained  to  be  a  mnemonic  form  for 
“the  Tishbite  (Elijah)  will  settle  doubts  and  in  other  ways,  for  which  see 
Buxtorf,  Lex.  2588. 

4  Megilla,  f.  28,  2  ;  Buxtorf,  Lex.  p.  612. 

5  In  favour  of  this  view  they  quoted  Ex.  xx.  1  ;  Eccl.  xii.  11  ;  Chagigah, 
f.  3,  2  ;  Gittin,  f.  6,  2  ;  Yebamoth,  f.  15,  2  (where  R.  Joshua  thinks  that  to 
decide  between  them  would  be  like  crushing  his  head  between  two  great  moun¬ 
tains).  They  .dispute  which  was  created  first — earth  or  heaven,  Tamid.  f. 
31,  2  ;  about  divorce  (Gittin,  f.  90,  1 — a  dispute  of  which  we  find  traces  even 
in  the  Gospels,  Matt.  v.  31,  32  ;  xix.  3-12)  ;  about  the  cleanness  of  wine  and 
oil  ( Shabbath ,  f.  17,  1)  ;  about  the  order  in  which  blessings  wrere  to  be  given 
[Succah,  f.  56,  1) ;  and  about  numberless  other  subjects.  Sometimes  the 


Phylacteries. 


87 


confess  that  “  as  the  disciples  of  Hillel  and  Shammai  multi¬ 
plied,  who  had  not  studied  the  Law  thoroughly,  contentions 
increased  in  Israel  to  such  an  extent  that  the  Law  lost  its 
unity  and  became  as  two.”  1  Having  thrust  a  book  between 
men  and  God,  and  a  tradition  between  men  and  the  book 
they  thrust  themselves  between  men  and  the  tradition,  and 
so — once  more  like  the  mediaeval  priesthood — built  upon 
ignorance  and  superstition  a  terrific  usurpation.2 

The  object  of  the  Halakha  was  the  indefinite  development 
of  rules  to  meet  every  conceivable  case  in  which  a  legalist 
might  be  supposed  to  be  in  doubt.  “  The  real,”  says  Gothe, 
“  is  narrow  ;  the  possible  is  immense.”  The  Halakhoth  were 
a  system  of  scholasticism  applied  to  ritual.3  Take,  by  way  of 
illustration,  the  case  of  phylacteries.  It  must  be  regarded 
as  an  open  question  whether  the  law  about  phylacteries  was 
ever  intended  to  be  taken  literally.4  The  Karaites  have 
always  rejected  them.5  Jerome  comes  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  injunction  on  which  they  are  founded  merely  meant 
that  the  Law  was  to  be  carried  into  action,  and  to  be 
meditated  day  and  night.  But  even  if  it  be  granted  that  the 
use  of  phylacteries  was  intended,  of  what  exegetical  value  are 
the  huge  folio  pages  of  minute  discussion  as  to  their  shape, 
size,  and  construction,  as  to  the  way  in  which  the  knot  of  them 
was  to  be  made,  as  to  the  question  whether  they  are  worn  by 
God  Himself  or  not  ? 6  The  same  remark  applies  even  more 


scholars  even  came  to  blows  and  bloodshed  (see  the  authorities  quoted  in  Jost 
Gesch.  d.  Isr.  iii.  118). 

1  Sanhedrin,  f.  88,  2.  They  applied  the  phrase  “a  rock  of  offence  to  both 
the  houses  of  Israel,”  to  the  schools  of  Hillel  and  Shammai.  See  Jer. 
Comment,  in  Isaiam,  ad  loc. 

2  They  openly  declared  that  without  their  interpretations  the  Law  was  a 
mass  of  unintelligible  signs.  Bammidbar  Rabba,  §  14.  They  first  made  the 
Oral.Law  as  sacred  as  the  ‘Written  ;  then  “  the  Words  of  the  Wise,”  and  “  of 
the  Scribes  ;”  and  then  made  these  last  more  sacred  than  all. 

3  There  were  millions  of  possible  Halakhoth.  “Every  word  of  the  Tliora 
can  be  explained  in  seventy  ways.”  Bammidbar  Rabba,  §  13.  R.  Eliezer  has 
300  Halakhoth  about  one  case  of  leprosy.  Sanhedrin,  f.  25,  2.  3,000  Halakhoth 
were  forgotten  in  the  mourning  for  Moses.  Temoorah,  f.  15,  2. 

4  Or  only  figuratively,  like  Prov.  iii.  3. 

5  |?y  xiii.  9. 

6  Berakhcth  (Schwab,  p.  241). 


88 


Precedent. 


forcibly  to  the  elaborate  regulations  about  fringes1  and 
ablutions,  and  the  endless  disputations  about  the  Sabbath 
and  the  major  and  minor  prohibitions  with  which  the  Jews 
surrounded  it.2  One  whole  treatise  of  the  Mishna,  that  known 
as  “  The  Egg,”  3  derives  its  name  from  the  question  discussed 
in  it  as  to  whether  an  egg  laid  on  the  Sabbath  or  a  festival 
may  or  may  not  be  eaten — a  question  on  which  the  great 
soul  of  Moses  would  have  looked  with  infinite  contempt.4 
The  Rabbis  themselves  compared  these  masses  of  inferential 
precepts  to  a  mountain  dangling  by  a  single  hair. 

In  Rabbinic  teaching  precedent  reigned  supreme.  Hillel, 
after  arguing  for  a  whole  day  in  vain  against  the  Beni 
Bethira  that  the  Paschal  lamb  must  be  offered  on  the 
Sabbath,  not  only  wins  his  cause,  but  is  made  president  of 
the  schools,  when  he  quotes  the  decision  of  Shemaia  and 
Abtalion.  The  predominant  formulae  of  the  Talmud  are 
appeals  to  the  assertions  of  Rabbis.5  And  the  Rabbis  pro¬ 
tected  the  whole  system  to  the  uttermost,  just  as  clerical 
orders  often  defend  the  usurpations  of  priestcraft.  Pro¬ 
fessional  pedants  felt  the  strong  fascination  of  wielding 
despotic  power  over  the  souls  of  all  who  could  be  induced  by 
terror,  by  custom,  or  by  self-interest  to  accept  their  sway. 

ii.  The  Haggada,6  although  it  had  its  own  feebleness  and 

1  One  of  the  appendices  to  the  Talmud  is  devoted  to  fringes.  For 
an  ingenious  argument  in  favour  of  the  necessity  of  the  Halakha,  see  Grand- 
Rabbi  Klein,  Le  Judaisme,  pp.  12-17. 

2  On  Phylacteries,  Fringes,  Sabbath  rules,  see  a  paper  by  the  present  writer 
in  the  Expositor ,  v.  215,  sq.  The  major  and  derivative  prohibitions  (aboth 
and  toldoth)  as  regards  the  Sabbath  are  enumerated  in  Shabbath,  f.  73,  1. 
See  too  the  extracts  from  the  Book  of  Jubilees,  given  by  Hausrath,  New 
Test.  Times  (E.T.),  i.  95.  On  ablutions,  see  Mark  vii.  1-4;  Berakhoth, 
viii.  3,  and  the  entire  Mishnaic  tract  Yadaim  (Hand-washings). 

3  Bttza. 

4  Similarly  a^boundless  extension  was  given  to  the  humane  precept  not  to 
seethe  a  kid  in  its  mother’s  milk.  Flesh  and  milk  are  not  to  be  eaten  together, 
otherwise  the  kid  might  be  seethed  in  its  mother’s  milk  in  the  stomach  of  the 
eater ! 

5  Such  as  Tanu  Rabbanan,  “our  Rabbis  have  taught;”  Tani  chada,  “a 

certain  Rabbi  has  taught  ;  ”  “Another  has  taught ;  ”  “  ¥e  have  a  tradition  ;  ” 
“  It  is  a  Mishna,”  &c.  “  The  scribes  say,”  Mark  ix.  11. 

6  mJK  is  the  Aramaic  form  for  the  Hebrew  mun,  and  it  is  derived  from 
“R3,  narravit ,  of  which  Haggada  is  the  Hiphel  form  (Hamburger,  s.v.). 
Buxtorf  defines  it  as  “  Narratio,  enarratio,  historia  jucunda  et  subtilis,  dis- 
cursus  historicus  aut  thcologicus  de  aliquo  loco  Seripturae  jucundus,  animum 
lector  is  attrahens.  ” 


89 


The  Hciggada. 

its  own  absurdities,  was,  on  the  whole,  a  nobler  and  more 
human  development  of  teaching.  The  word  may  be  rendered 
by  “  story  ”  or  legend.  In  its  practical  usage  it  corresponds 
to  our  “  homiletics,”  but  its  admonitions  were  mingled  with 
fables  and  apologues.  It  was  never  supposed  to  possess  any 
legal  authority.1  “If,”  says  Dr.  Deutsch,  “the  Halakha 
was  the  iron  bulwark  around  the  nationality  of  Israel,  the 
Haggada  was  a  maze  of  flowery  walks  within  those  fortress 
walls.” 

Such  teaching  was  obviously  more  attractive,  and  might  be 
made  far  more  edifying  than  ritual  decisions  could  ever  be.2 
‘'The  words  of  the  Haggada,”  said  the  Jewish  proverb,  “at¬ 
tract  the  mind.”  3  It  dealt  largely  with  moral  theses,  and  the 
wisest  Rabbis  felt  that  the  Halakha  and  the  Haggada  should 
be  combined.  “  Whoever,”  says  Rabbi  Isaac  ben  Pinchas, 
“  has  learnt  Haggadoth  without  Halakhoth  has  not  tasted 
of  wisdom,  and  is  defenceless  ;  if,  on  the  other  hand,  he  has 
studied  Halakhoth  without  Haggadoth  he  has  not  tasted 
the  fear  of  sin.”  4  “Between  the  rugged  boulders  of  the 
Law,”  says  Dr.  Deutsch,  “there  grow  the  blue  flowers  of 
romance  and  poetry — parable,  gnome,  tale,  saga — its  elements 
are  taken  from  heaven  and  earth ;  but  chiefly  and  most 
lovingly  from  Scripture  and  from  the  human  heart.”  5 6 

The  Haggada  sprung  into  importance  in  the  days  of 
Rabbi  Johanan  ben  Zakkai,  when  the  stricken  hearts  of 
the  Jews  were  most  in  need  of  consolation.  The  stricter 

1  Schwab  (Berakhoth,  xv.)  refers  to  Jer.  Fed.  ii.  §  4  ;  Shabbath,  xvi.  §  1 ; 
and  to  the  opinions  of  Maimonides,  Juda  Halevi,  Ibn  Ezra,  &c.  See  too  the 
numerous  quotations  in  Klein,  Le  Judciisme  pp.  23 — 28. 

"  Halakha,  for  instance,  contains  nothing  so  spiritual  as  R.  Simlai’s 
reduction  of  the  613  precepts  to  one.  Gratz,  iv.  265. 

3  ^?'H  D'pBMD  JVHK  Hit  Chiarini,  i.  63.  “  Quaedam  ex  illis,”  says 

ibn  Ezra,  sunt  aenigmata,  arcana,  et  parabolae  sublimes  usque  ad  aethera. 
AJiae  mserviunt  ad  refocillanda  corda  defatigata.  Aliae  .  .  .  similes  sunt  cor- 
ponbus  ;  allegoriae  autem  sunt  veluti  vestimenta  corpori  adhaerentia.  Aliae 
sunt  subtiles  instar  serici,  aliae  crassae  veluti  suecus.” 

4  Aboth  of  R.  Nathan,  c.  29.  I  have  pointed  out  elsewhere  that  St  Paul 

was  an  Haggadist,  and  treats  the  Halakha  with  marked  indifference.  But  he 
uses  Rabbinic  methods  very  rarely,  and  only  by  way  of  passing  illustration, 
and  only  for  noble  purposes. 

6  Remains ,  p.  145. 


90 


The  Haggada. 

Talmudists  professed  to  despise  it.  R.  Joshua  hen  Levi 
said  that  he  who  wrote  it  down  would  have  no  portion  in 
the  world  to  come,  and  that  he  who  explained  it  would  be 
scorched.1  R.  Leiri,  in  the  Maaseroth,  curses  all  wiitings 
that  contain  the  Haggada.2  When  the  mass  of  the  people 
deserted  Rabbi  Chija,  who  was  lecturing  on  the  Halakha,  for 
Rabbi  Abuhu,  who  was  a  Haggadist,  the  latter,  in  order 
to  console  the  wounded  jealousy  of  his  rival,  compared  the 
Halakha  to  pearls  which  were  too  costly  for  the  multitude 
who  therefore  deserted  the  merchant  who  sold  them  for  the 
modest  pedlar  who  sold  only  shells  or  sweetmeats.  It  was 
also  compared  to  small  coin.8  But  its  value  and  neces¬ 
sity  were  more  and  more  recognised  as  time  went  on. 
The  people  found  in  it  more  comfort  and  more  reality 
than  in  the  aridity  of  the  Halakha.  The  Mishna  has  hut 
few  specimens  of  it ;  the  Gemara  abounds  with  it ,  the 
Midrashim  have  little  else.  The  Halakha  was  compared  to 
bread,  the  Haggada  to  water  ; 4  it  is  called  one  of  the  wonders 
of  God,  and  the  honour  and  glory  of  the  wise.5  In  Siphri  it 
is  compared  to  wine  which  gladdens  the  heart  of  man ,  and 
even  though  Maimonides  never  wrote  his  promised  book  on 
the  Haggadoth,  he  compared  them  to  baskets  of  silver 
which  hide  apples  of  gold.6 * 


1  Etheridge,  Hebr.  Lit.  p.  183.  .  ,  T 

2  Chiarini,  ii.  44.  “  Rabbi  ben  Levi  said,  “  He  who  writes  an  Haggada  has 

no  portion  in  the  world  to  come.  ...  In  all  my  life  I  have  never  even  l°°ke 
at  a  book  of  the  Haggada.”  Jer.  Shabbath,  c.  xvi.  On  the  other  hand  R. 
Chaneenah  bar  Pappa  taught  (Deut.  v.  4),  “  The  Lord  talked  with  you  faces 
to  faces  (D'OQl  D'JEJ).  This  must  mean  at  least  four  faces  ;  for  bcripture  a 
face  for  fear;  for  Mishna  a  moderate  face;  smiling  for  the  Talmud,  and 
friendly  for  the  Haggada.”  Sopherim,  c.  xvi.  #  „  ...  . 

s  Sota,  f.  40  ;  Weill,  i.  126  ;  Gratz,  iv.  396.  For  a  specimen  see  Weill,  1. 
154-162,  and  the  Yalqut  on  Zechariah  translated  by  Dr.  King  (Cambr. 


1883). 


5  Baba  Bath’ra,  f.  9  ;  Midrash  Tehillin,  on  Prov.  25  ;  Weill,  i.  125. 

6  Prov.  xxx.  11.  Maimonides,  Pref.  to  Moreh  Nevochim.  Gratz  compares 
the  Halakha  to  the  trunk  of  Judaism  ;  the  Midrash  to  the  roots  ;  the  logical 
developments  (“  Talmud”  in  narrower  sense)  to  the  branches  ;  and  the  Hag- 
<mda  to  the  flowers,  iv.  19.  The  close  translation  of  the  lesson  from  the 

Law  (the  Parasha)  by  the  Methurgerman,  and  the  freer  rendering  of  that 
from  the  Prophets  (the  Haphtara)  is  analogous  to  the  use  of  the  Halakha  m 

developing  the  Law,  and  of  the  Haggada  as  applied  to  ether  parts  of  Scnptuie. 


The  Talmud. 


91 


And  thus  the  stream  of  the  Haggada,  long  pent  up,  began 
to  flow  with  full  waters,  bearing  along  a  mingled  mass  of 
fables,  apologues,  appeals,  similitudes,  proverbs,  quaint  legends, 
moral  applications,  allegory,  folk-lore,  romance,  and  aphorism.1 
Its  object  was  sometimes  to  arouse  the  attention  fatigued  by 
the  dryness  of  ceremonial  discussions ;  sometimes  to  thwart  the 
curiosity  of  prying  intruders  by  safe  and  convenient  crypto¬ 
graphs  ;  sometimes  to  lighten  up  an  address  by  pleasant 
illustrations ;  sometimes  to  leave  a  mystery  in  its  enigmatic 
shadows.2  It  played  undisturbed  over  the  surface  of  the 
Historic  books.  It  is  mainly  due  to  the  presence  of  some  of 
the  wildest  Haggadoth  in  the  Gemara,  and  in  great  measure  to 
the  misunderstanding  of  their  real  character,  that  the  Talmud 
has  acquired  its  common  reputation  for  folly  and  perversity. 

Y.  Since,  then,  the  Mishna  is  mainly  ritual,  and  the  Gemara 
has  a  large  infusion  of  legendary  homiletics,  and  the  two 
together  make  up  the  Talmud,  let  us  ask,  What  is  the 
Talmud  ? 

The  Babylonian  Talmud  fills  2,947  folio  pages,  and  for  many 
ages  so  completely  overshadowed  and  superseded  the  Bible 
that  it  may  be  regarded  as  the  sacred  book  of  the  orthodox 
Jews.  Surely  it  is  one  of  the  strangest  of  the  Bibles  of 
humanity  !  It  has  been  called  “  the  Pandects  of  Judaism,” 
but  it  is  also  the  encyclopaedia  of  Jewish  science,  and  the 
Hansard  of  nearly  a  thousand  years  of  discussion  in  Jewish 
schools,  and  the  Rationale  Officiorum  of  all  its  ceremonial.3 

1  See  Herder,  Briefe  iiber  das  Studium  der  Theologie. 

2  Maimonides,  l.c.  He  quotes  Ps.  xxv.  14.  It  professedly  abounds  in  the 
most  monstrous  exaggerations,  which  are  sometimes  not  cryptographic,  but 
sheer  idle  nonsense,  as  when  R.  Jose  says  that 'he  saw  in  Sepphoris  180,000 
streets  of  pastrycooks  (Yalqut  on  Zech.  ii.  2).  Many  such  remarks  were  only 
meant  to  rouse  the  attention  of  somnolent  hearers.  The  Rabbis  sometimes 
expressed  truth  in  a  striking  way.  “Fear  God  even  as  ye  fear  men,”  said  R. 
Jochanan  ben  Zakkai,  on  his  deathbed.  His  disciples  were  astonished. 
“  When  you  are  going  to  do  WTong,”  he  said,  “you  look  rouud  to  discover  if 
any  man  sees  you  ;  take  heed  that  God’s  all-seeing  eye  does  not  see  your 
sinful  thoughts.”  “Every  man  should  repent,”  said  R..  Eliezer,  “a  day 
before  his  death.  ”  “But  how  does  he  know  when  he  will  die?”  asked  his 
disciples.  “  Then,”  said  the  Rabbi,  “  let  him  repent  every  day.” 

3  See  Zunz,  p.  42  ;  Deutsch,  p.  17  ;  Weber,  p.  94.  “  On  y  rapporte,  on  y 

discute  toutes  les  suppositions  les  moins  pratiques,  les  moins  imaginables.  ” 
Schwab,  Berakhoth,  f.  xvi. 


92 


The  Talmud. 


It  is  a  veritable  lanx  satura.  It  consists  of  disputes,  decisions, 
stories,  sermons,  legends,  Scripture  comments,  moral  truths, 
prescriptions,  observations,  mazes  of  legal  enactments,  gor¬ 
geous  day-dreams,  masked  history,  ill-disguised  rationalism. 
It  is  drawn  from  the  promiscuous  note-books  of  students  of 
very  diverse  attainments  and  character  in  which  they  have 
scribbled  down  all  the  wisdom  and  all  the  unwisdom,  all  the 
sense  and  all  the  nonsense  which  was  talked  for  centuries  in 
the  schools  of  all  kinds  of  Rabbis.1  The  Jew  might  say  of 
his  beloved  Babli, 

“  Quicquid  agunt  homines,  votum,  timor,  ira,  voluptas, 

Gaudia,  discursus,  nostri  est  farrago  libelli.” 


The  work  of  hundreds  of  learned  men  of  different  ages, 
countries,  and  conditions,  it  forms  a  wonderful  monument  of 
human  industry,  human  wisdom,  and  human  folly.2  Written 
in  a  style  of  lapidary  brevity,  it  reads  like  a  collection  of  tele¬ 
graphic  messages.  It  is  also  full  of  uncouth  grammar,  barbarous 
solecisms,  and  exotic  words.3  We  can  hardly  wonder  that  it  is 
difficult  to  discover  the  method  of  its  apparently  confused 
and  desultory  discussions,  when  we  remember  that  it  was 
developed  amid  conditions  of  peril  and  discouragement, 
amid  endless  disturbances  of  war  and  violences  of  persecu¬ 
tion,  under  the  jealous  eye  of  Roman  informers  or  the  cruel 
greed  and  fanatical  malice  of  Persian  oppressors.4  Such 
being  its  origin  it  naturally  teems  with  errors,  exaggerations, 

1  Rabbi  Jehudi  Halle  vy  makes  some  excellent  remarks  to  this  effect  in 
Cusari  pt.  iii.  73,  see  Klein  Le  Judaisms  p.  40-46,  who  also  quotes  Ibn  Ezra, 
It.  Serira  Gaon,  Luzzatto  and  others,  as  well  as  such  authorities  as  Buxtorf, 
Wagenseil,  Selden,  etc. 

2  Hurwitz  ;  Milman,  Hist,  of  the  Jews,  iii.  5.  The  method  of  dispute  in 
the  Rabbinic  schools  was  called  “  Pilpul”  or  “  duel.”  There  are  four  Schools 
of  Talmudists  :  the  Pilpulists,  who  almost  ceased  after  the  days  of  Mendels¬ 
sohn  ;  the  Casuists ;  the  Homilists ;  and  the  Historic  School,  among  whom 
may  be  reckoned  writers  like  Rappoport,  Zunz,  Jost,  Krochmal,  Frankel, 
Geiger,  Luzzato,  Griitz,  Steinschneider,  &c.  See  Low,  Prciktische  Einleit.  pp. 
84-89. 

3  The  language  of  the  Talmud  has  been  philologically  handled  by  Geiger, 
Levisohn,  Luzzato,  L.  Dukes,  and  others.  The  translation  of  the  whole 
Talmud  was  begun  by  Chiarini  (into  French),  and  by  Dr.  Moses  Pinner  (into 
German),  but  in  both  cases  proceeded  no  further  than  one  volume.  The  trans¬ 
lation  by  Dr.  Moise  Schwab  seems  likely  to  become  complete. 

4  See  Etheridge,  Hebr.  Lit.  175. 


The  “  Sea  of  the  Talmud  ” 


93 


and  even  obscenities ;  with  strange  superstitions  of  Eastern 
demonology ;  with  wild  Arabian  tales  about  the  freaks  of 
Ashmodai ;  with  childish  extravagances  of  fancy  about 
Behemoth  and  the  bird  Bar  Juchne  and  the  Shorhabor; 
with  perverted  logic  ;  with  confusions  of  genealogy  chrono- 
logy,  and  history ;  with  exorcisms,  incantations,  and  magic 
formulae  ;  with  profane  and  old  wives’  fables,  of  which  some 
few  may  have  had  a  hidden  significance  to  those  who  had 
the  key  to  their  meaning,1  but  of  which  the  majority  were 
understood  by  the  multitude  in  their  literal  absurdity.2 

These  “Jewish  myths  and  genealogies,”  as  St.  Paul  calls 
them,  have  their  dark  side.  All  that  can  be  urged  by  way 
of  excuse  for  their  baser  elements  is  that  they  were  not 
always  meant  to  be  taken  literally,  or  to  be  weighed  in 
jewellers  scales.  The  Babbi,  talking  familiarly  in  his 
lighter  and  unguarded  moments,  did  not  intend  his  eager 
pupils  to  retain  and  record  his  most  rash  and  accidental 
utterances.  Here,  however,  in  this  strange  literary  Hercu- 

eum  all  things  are  swept  together  in  wild  confusion. 
Things  grave  and  fantastic,  great  and  small,  valuable  and 
worthless,  Jewish  and  Pagan,  the  altar  and  its  ashes  are 
piled  together  in  wild  disorder.  Amid  the  labyrinths  of 
rubbish  we  require  a  torch  to  enable  us  to  pick  up  an 
accidental  gem. 

Such  gems,  indeed,  it  contains.  In  this  sea  of  the 
Talmud  “  this  strange  wild  weird  ocean  with  its  levi¬ 
athans,  and  its  wrecks  of  golden  argosies,  and  its  forlorn 
bells  which  send  up  their  dreamy  sounds  ever  and 
anon  there  are  some  treasures,  which  have  frequently 

Sed  hoc  interim  etiam  dicendum  et  sciendum,  non  omnia  quae  imneritis 
taha  videntur,  esse  talia.”  Buxtorf. 

No  one  will  take  his  estimate  of  the  Talmud  from  such  wholly  uncritical 
coilections  as  those  of  Raymond  Martin’s  Pugio  Fidei,  or  Eisenmenger’s 
Fntdecktes  Judenthum  (see  Weber,  xxxiii.).  Even  such  valuable  works  as 
those  of  Lightfoot,  Schottgen,  Meuschen,  and  Wetstein,  are  vitiated  by  the 
uncritical  promiscuousness  of  the  quotations  collected.  But  after  every 
allowance  is  made  the  Talmud  is  one  of  the  dreariest  of  books. 

Deutsch,  Remains ,  1-58,  135-145.  See  Bartolocci,  Bibl.  Rabb.  iii.  359  sq. 
Gratz,  lv.  410-412 ;  Etheridge,  Ecbr.  Lit.  185.  Buxtorf  admits  that  there 
are  in  the  lalmud  “  inutiles  quasi  paleae  et  multi  furfures  ”  but  also  “  utilia 
quandoque  esse  grana  et  puram  similam .” 


94 


Evils  of  Talmudism. 

been  gathered,  amid  the  froth  and  scum,  the  flotsam  and 
jetsam  of  a  thousand  years.  Exquisite  parables  and  noble 
aphorisms  are  scattered  in  its  pages  heie  and  there.  The 
general  darkness  is  sometimes  broken  by  keen  flashes  of 
intellectual,  and  even  of  spiritual,  light.  But  these  are  rare, 
and  to  speak  of  the  Talmud  in  such  terms  of  enthusiasm 
as  those  with  which  Dr.  Deutsch  charmed  the  unwary,  or  to 
say  of  it,  with  Professor  Hurwitz,  that  no  uninspired  work 
contains  more  interesting,  more  varied,  or  more  valuable  infor¬ 
mation — is  to  be  blinded  by  national  prejudice  to  facts  which 
any  one  can  put  to  the  test. 

But  the  worst  result  of  the  influence  exercised  by  the 
Talmud  is  the  injury  which  it  inflicted  on  the  living  oracles 

of  God. 

That  injury  was  twofold. 

On  the  one  hand  the  Jews  were  taught  to  care  more  for  it, 
and  to  devote  more  continued  study  to  its  masses  of  casuistry 
and  extravagance  than  to  the  divine  beauty  of  the  Psalms 
and  the  noble  moral  teaching  of  the  Prophets.  Thus  they 
were  turned  from  the  river  of  life  to  broken  cisterns  which 
would  hold  no  water,  or  only  the  shallow  and  stagnant  pools 
of  a  tradition  polluted  by  a  thousand  strange  and  hetero¬ 
geneous  influxes.  A  “  Biblical  theologian  was  as  great 
an  object  of  contempt  to  the  Rabbis  as  he  became  to  the 
Schoolmen  in  their  worst  epoch  of  decline. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  actual  exegesis  of  Scripture  in 
which  the  Talmud  abounds  is  so  arbitrary  and  so  futile, 
so  tasteless  and  so  insincere,  that  it  must  have  given  to 
its  students  a  radically  false  conception  of  their  sacred 
books.  It  represented  to  them  the  Law  of  Moses  as  frag¬ 
mentary  without  the  supplement  of  tradition,  and  inexplicable 
without  the  intervention  of  Rabbinism.  Let  us,  for  instance, 
take  the  tracts  Shabbath  and  Bitza.  The  interminable 
discussions  on  Sabbath  regulations  which  those  treatises  con¬ 
tain  turn  almost  exclusively  on  false  quotations  or  on 
inferences  wholly  without  base.1 

1  For  an  instance  see  Chiarini,  ii.  226. 


“  Pardes.” 


95 


VI.  What  has  been  said  of  the  Talmud  applies  in  general 
to  all  the  Rabbinic  writings  and  to  the  whole  collection  of 
Midrashim,  of  which  the  most  celebrated  are  nothing  but 
catenae  of  Talmudic  passages.1  The  word  Midrash  means, 
in  its  strictest  sense,  the  exposition  of  the  Pentateuch  and 
of  the  five  rolls  of  Canticles,  Ruth,  Lamentations,  Ec¬ 
clesiastes,  Esther,  which  is  collected  in  the  Midrash  Rabba. 
J ewish  exegesis,  as  applied  in  the  Midrashim,  was  founded  on 
the  four  methods  mnemonically  described  as, 

PaRDeS 


or  Paradise  : — namely, 

Peshat,  or  the  literal  sense ;  the  grammatico-historical  mean¬ 
ing  of  words  and  sentences.2 

Remez,  or  hint,  the  development  of  latent  meanings.3 

Darush ,  or  homiletics,4  including  allegory  and  all  kinds  of 
illustration. 

Sdd,  or  mystery.5 

Exegetically  the  Peshat  is  alone  of  real  value.6  The  Remez 
was  chiefly  devoted  to  the  development  of  Halakha ;  the 
Darush  to  the  Haggada,  and  the  Sod  to  the  Qabbala. 

It  was  in  the  development  of  the  Sod,  or  mystery,  that  the 
Kabbalists  found  the  chief  sphere  of  their  labours.  The 

1  See  Dr.  Ginsburgin  Kitto’s  Cyclopaedia,  s.v.  Midrashim  ;  and  in  Koheleth 
p.  30.  It  is  a  haggadistic  collection,  half  homiletic,  half  exegetical  in 
character. 

2  Compare  the  name  of  the  Syriac  version — Peshito,  which  implied  that  the 

version  was  simple  and  literal.  Even  some  of  the  Sopherim  had  laid 
down,  the  rule  that  every  interpretation  was  to  accord  with  the  literal 
(ID'iPB  'TD  XVP  pN),  but  no  one  practically  attended  to  it. 

3  An  assonance,  a  change  of  letters,  &c.  “  Gott  als  Vcrfasser  konne  mit 

einem  M  orte,  mit  der  einfachen  und  natiirlichen  Bedeutung,  noch  eine  andere 
verkniipft  haben  und  Mehreres  mit  cinem  Male  lehren.  .  .  .  Dieses  heisst 
im  Talmud  i"l30  'mD,  Beides  entnehme  ich  daraus.”  Hirschfeld, 

Ilalach.  Exegese,  §  104.  See  too  §  112  ;  Weber,  115. 

4  From  Cm,  “to  search.” 

5  The  Derek  ha-kabbala.  See  Etheridge,  Hcbr.  Lit.  p.  404. 

6  Critical  Jews  distinguish  between  popular  commentaries  like  the  Midra¬ 
shim,  and  scientific  commentaries  (Perushim).  The  writers  of  the  Midrash 
were  neither  Paraphrasts  ( Targumists),  nor,  properly  speaking,  commentators 
(Uiphrcshim).  The  latter  begin  properly  with  Saadja  in  the  tenth  century,  and 
include  the  great  names  of  Ptashi,  Ibn  Ezra,  Maimonides,  the  Qimchis,  and 
Abrabanel.  Asaria  di  Kossi  distinguishes  between  hyperbolical  ( guzma ), 
haggadistic,  and  “exhaustive  Midrash.  The  latter,  like  what  Sixtus  Senensis 
calls  the  Pandesiac  method,  explained  Scripture  in  all  possible  ways. 


96 


The  Qabbcila. 


word  Qabbala  means  “a  thing  received,”  but  it  was  used  for 
«  scholastic  lore,”  1  and  it  was  asserted  that  the  Qabbala  was 
of  equal  sacredness  with  the  Law,  and  had  been  received  by 
Moses  on  Sinai.  The  germs  of  the  Qabbala,  m  some  of  its 
branches,  must  be  of  early  date,  for  it  is  referred  to  in  the 
Mishna.2  Its  two  main  divisions  were  the  Real  and  the 
Symbolical.  The  real  Qabbala  is  more  connected  with 
theosophy  and  thaumaturgy  than  with  anything  which  could 
be  called  exegesis.  Its  theoretical  section  comprised  the 
two  great  branches  of  inquiry,  cosmogony  and  theosophy. 
They  were  called  the  Maaseh  Bereshith,  or  Work  of  the  Crea¬ 
tion,  and  the  Maaseh  MerTcaba ,  or  Work  of  the  Chariot,  which 
derived  its  name  from  the  Vision  of  Ezekiel.  The  Maaseh 
Bereshith  entered  into  endless  speculations  about  the  Creation, 
the  ten  spheres,  the  four  worlds,  the  Bn  Sojph,  01  Infinite, 
Memra  or  the  Word,  Adam  Kadrnon  the  Primeval  Man,  the 
mysteries  of  numbers,  and  so  forth.3  It  sought  to  explain 
the  transition  from  the  Infinite  to  the  Finite,  fiom  Mind 
to  Matter.  The  Maaseh  MerTcaba  plunged  into  inquiries 
respecting  the  abstract  nature  of  God,  and  was  surrounded 


Qabbala 


Real. 


Symbolic. 


Theoretical.  Practical  (Magic  Thauma¬ 
turgy,  &c.). 


Gematria.  Notarikon.  Temoorah. 


Arithmetic.  Figurative.  Architectonic. 


Creation 

(Maaseh 


Bereshith).  Meikaba.) 


The  Chariot 
(Maaseh 


p.  503. 


Kabbalism. 


97 


with  a  veil  of  terror  and  mystery.  Practical  Kabbalism 
instructed  the  neophyte  in  the  manner  in  which  the  Incom¬ 
municable  name — the  Shem  Hammephorash — might  be  em¬ 
ployed  for  magic  purposes.  The  two  chief  books  in  which 
these  studies — if  they  may  be  dignified  by  such  a  name — 
were  developed,  are  the  Zohar,  attributed  to  Rabbi  Simon 
Ben  J ochai,  but  in  its  present  form  not  older  than  the  thir¬ 
teenth  century;  and  the  Jetsirah,  or  Book  of  Splendour, 
which  Dr.  Zunz  assigns  to  the  Gaonim  in  the  eighth  or  ninth 
century.  The  former  is  devoted  to  Creation,  the  latter  to  the 
Chariot-throne.1 

But  if  these  branches  of  Kabbalistic  lore,  which  were 
largely  influenced  by  Persian  and  other  sources,  touch  even 
the  outer  circumference  of  exegesis,  on  the  other  hand  the 
writings  of  the  Rabbis  abound  in  the  symbolical  Kabbalism 
which  proposed  for  the  evolution  of  the  supposed  mystic 
senses  of  Scripture  thirteen  methods,  of  which  we  can  only 
say  that  each  is  more  impossible  and  arbitrary  than  the  pre¬ 
ceding.  They  are  founded  on  the  immense  delusion  that 
the  whole  Massorah,  even  down  to  the  verses,  words,  letters, 
vowel-points,  and  accents,  was  delivered  to  Moses  on  Sinai, 
and  that  “  the  numbers  of  the  letters,  every  single  letter,  the 
collocation  of  every  letter,  the  transposition,  the  substitution, 
had  a  special,  even  a  supernatural  power.”  These  rules  were 
summed  up  under  the  three  divisions  of  Gematria,  Notarikon 
and  Themoorah,  indicated,  in  the  usual  Rabbinic  way,  by  the 

1  The  earliest  Kabbalistic  book,  Sepher  ha  Bahir,  attributed  to  Kechonja 
ben  Hakana,  a  contemporary  of  Hillel,  is  no  longer  extant.  It  is  mentioned 
in  the  Chagiga,  but  the  book  published  under  that  title  in  1641  is  a  forgery. 
Similarly  a  Sepher  Jetsira,  touching  apparently  on  thaumaturgist  natural  science, 
is  mentioned  in  Sanhedrin,  c.  7  and  f.  67.  The  extant  Jetsira  does  not  pro¬ 
perly  belong  to  the  Qabbala  at  all  (Zunz,  p.  165),  and  treats  the  first  ten 
numbers  ( Setroth )  and  the  twenty-two  letters  (otkioth)  as  “thirty-two  wondrous 
ways  of  wisdom,”  in  which  God  created  the  universe.  The  Zohar  (“splen¬ 
dour”),  attributed  to  R.  Simon  Ben  Jochai,  but  probably  the  work  of  a  Spanish 
Jew  (Moses  de  Leon)  in  the  thirteenth  century  (Gratz,  vii.  ;  Ginsburg,  pp. 
78-89),  is  a  mystic  commentary  on  the  Pentateuch.  This  branch  of  the 
Qabbala  lies  wholly  outside  the  region  of  exegesis.  See  Reuchlin,  De  Arte 
Cabbalistica ;  Franck,  Systeme  de  la  Kabbale  ;  Dr.  Giusburg,  The  Kcibbala ; 
Jelinek,  Die  Kcibbala,  1844;  Etheridge,  Hebr.  Lit.  pp.  297-353.  Two  important 
Kabbalistic  books  are  the  “Lily  of  Secrets ”  (Shoshan  Sodoth),  by  Ramban 
(|  1260),  and  “Garden  of  Kuts”  ( Genath  Egoz).  by  Jos.  Karnitol  (See 
Etheridge,  p.  359). 


H 


98 


Gematria . 


initial  letters  of  the  words,  as  GeNeTH.1  These  methods 
play  so  large  a  part  in  Rabbinic  exegesis  that  we  must  pause 
to  explain  their  character. 

i.  Gematria  is  a  corruption  of  Geomctria,  one  of  the  many 
Greek  words  which  are  naturalised  in  Talmudic  Hebrew.2  The 
chief  branch  of  this  method  resembled  the  Greek  iscpsc- 
jphism  and  consisted  in  establishing  mystic  relations  between 
different  conceptions,  based  on  the  numerical  equivalence  of 
value  in  the  letters  by  which  they  are  expressed.  Philologically 
the  Jews  were  “  Analogists,”  i.e.  they  believed  in  the  mystic 
value  and  importance  of  names.  Hence  even  as  early  as  the 
Pentateuch  we  find  a  sort  of  etymological  comment,  and  in  the 
New  Testament  there  are  three  instances  of  deep  significance 
attached  to  the  sound  of  names.3 4  To  regard  every  name  as 
representing  a  number,  and  therefore  as  cognate  to  any  other 
name  which  yielded  the  same  number,  was  a  long  step  in 
advance.  Thus  in  Zechariah  iii.  8  the  promised  Messiah  is 
spoken  of  as  “  my  servant  the  Branch.”  4  Now  the  Hebrew 
letters  of  Tsemach,  “  a  sprout,”  are  equivalent  in  value  to  188  ; 
and  this  is  also  the  value  of  the  letters  of  “  Menahem,”  or 
“Consoler”  (Lam.  i.  16),  and  consequently  Menahem  is 
reckoned  anions  the  names  of  the  Messiah.5  In  Gen.  xlix. 
10,  “  Shiloh  come  ”  (riW  si')  is  equivalent  to  358,  and  that  is 
also  the  numerical  value  of  Mashiach  (ri'SPD).  Shiloh  is  there¬ 
fore  identified  with  the  Messiah.6  Again,  because  the  letters 
of  Mashiach  and  of  Nachash ,  “  serpent,”  are  isopsepliic,  they 
said  that  it  was  the  Messiah  who  would  bruise  the  serpent’s 
head.  Similar  instances — of  which  some  will  be  given  in 
the  notes — may  be  counted  by  hundreds  in  the  Rabbinic 

1  See  Buxtorf,  De  Abbreviaturis,  s.v.  Klein,  Le  Judaisms,  pp.  32-35. 

2  NHL2D3,  yew yerpia.  Dr.  Ginsburg  derives  it  from  ypaixyarela.  The 
actual  numbering  is  called  “reckoning”  (fQt^n).  Bammidbar  Rabba,  c. 
25.  (Comp.  Ecc.  vii.  25,  27.)  Weber,  Altsyn.  Theol.  118. 

3  “  He  shall  be  called  a  Nazarene,”  Matt.  ii.  23.  This  is  probably  an  allusion 
to  Netser ,  “a  branch.”  Comp.  Is.  xi.  1.  Sinai  and  Hagar,  Gal.  iv.  25. 
Claudius  =  6  Karex^v,  qui  Claudit,  2  Thess.  ii.  7. 

4  Rather  “the  sprout.”  Comp.  Jer.  xxiii.  5. 

3  Sanhedrin,  f.  98,  2.  ¥=90;E>  =  40;n  =  8  =  138. 

E>  —  40;3  =  50;n  =  8;D  =  40  =  138. 

This  identification  continues  down  to  modern  days. 


Gematrici. 


99 


writings.1  We  may  here  be  content  with  one  more  speci¬ 
men.  In  Gen.  xxv.  21,  the  letters  of  the  Hebrew  word  for 
“his  wife”  have  the  value  of  707,  which  is  the 

equivalent  of  the  words  “  fire  and  straw,”  and  is  at  once 

mystically  connected  with  Obadiah,  verse  11,  “  the  house  of 
J  acob  shall  be  a  fire  .  .  .  and  the  house  of  Esau  of  stubble.”  2 
Of.  the  applications  of  this  method  some  are  purely  frivolous, 
as  when  it  is  inferred  that  Eliezer  was  alone  equal  to 
all  the  other  318  servants  of  Abraham  because  the  letters 
of  his  name  have  the  value  318 ;  or  that  there  are  never 
less  than  36  righteous  in  the  world,  because  in  Is.  xxx. 
18,  “  Blessed  are  all  those  that  wait  upon  Him,”  the  value 
of  the  word  “  upon  Him”  is  36 ;  or  that  there  are  70 
nations  of  the  world  because  “  Gog  and  Magog  ”  give  the 
number  70 ;  or  that  there  are  903  ways  of  dying  because  the 
word  for  “ issues  of  death,”  in  Ps.  lxviii.  21,  gives  the  number 
903  (niK^in).3  Some  of  the  references,  however,  became 
practically  important,  as  when  the  length  of  a  Nazarite’s  vow 
might  be  limited  to  30  days,  because  in  Hum.  vi.  5,  “  he  shall 
be  holy,”  the  word  “  he  shall  be  ”  (,Trr)  gives  the  number  30  ; 
or  as  when  it  was  inferred  that  there  might  be  98  ways  of 
explaining  the  Law,  because  in  Cant.  ii.  4  the  word  for  “  and 
his  banner  ”  gives  the  number  49  ;  or  again,  that  the 

Law  had  613  precepts  because  the  word  for  “  incense”  (mttp) 
gives  61 3.4  Sometimes  the  inference  even  acquires  for  the 

1  In  a  curious  passage  of  De  praescriptione  haereticorum,  c.  50,  Tertullian 
speaks  of  Gematria.  “Marcus  quidam  et  Colarbasus  novam  haeresim  cx 
Graecorum  alphabeta  components?.  Negant  euim  veritatem  sine  istis  posse 
litteris  inveniri,  immo  totam  plenitudinem  et  perfectionem  veritatis  in  istis 
litteris  esse  dispositam.”  He  says  they  founded  the  doctrine  on  “I  am  a 
and  cd.”  Thus  because  n eptarepa  =  801  =  AH,  they  said  that  the  Logos 
was  joined  to  Jesus  at  Baptism  (Iren.  Haer.  i.  14,  §  6).  Going  through 
the  alphabet  in  a  reverse  order,  “  Computant  ogdoadas  et  deeadas,  ita  ut 
afferre  illorum  omnes  vanitates  et  ineptum  sit  et  otiosum.”  But  it  was  not 
only  Gnosticism  which  eagerly  availed  itself  of  Ivabbalistic  exegesis.  Thus  we 
find  the  mystic  explanation  of  Abraham’s  318  servants  as  a  type  of  Christ, — 
T  (=  300)  being  the  Cross,  and  i-n  (=  18)  being  the  first  letters  of  the  name  of 
Jesus— as  early  as  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas  (c.  ix.). 

5  Sanhedrin,  f.  97,  2. 

3  See  Berakhoth,  f.  8,  1. 

4  If  by  Athbash  D  is  changed  into  “|  !  See  Buxtorf,  Dc  Abbreviatures, 
p.  57.  But  Thorah  gives  the  same  result :  n  =  400  ;  1  =  6  ;  1  =■  200  ;  H  = 
5  =  611,  which,  with  the  Sliema  and  the  first  commandment  =  613. 

H  2 


100 


Gematria. 


Jewish  mind  a  strong  theological  significance,  as  when  they 
inferred  that  the  Day  of  Atonement  was  the  only  day  of  the 
year  on  which  Satan  could  bring  no  accusation,  because  the 
word  Hassatan  (jd^n)  gives  only  364.1  Sometimes  also  the 
method  was  used  to  explain  away  a  plain  fact  of  Scripture  which 
militated  with  Jewish  prejudices,  as  when  it  was  asserted  that 
Moses  did  not  marry  an  Ethiopian  woman  (Kushith)  but  a 
“  beautiful  ”  woman,  since  Kushith  yields  the  number  736 
which  is  equivalent  to  “  fair  of  form  ”  (nN“ lETlS').  We  find 
this  kind  of  Gematria  used  cryptographically  by  St.  John  in 
the  Apocalypse  to  indicate  the  name  of  Nero,  as  it  is  used  in 
the  Sibylline  verses  to  indicate  the  name  of  Jesus.2 

There  were  two  other  branches  of  Gematria,  the  Architec¬ 
tonic ,  which  concerned  itself  with  calculations  respecting  the 
Tabernacle,  the  Temple,  and  the  ideal  Temple  of  Ezekiel ; 3 4 
and  the  Figurative 4  (already  alluded  to),  which  speculated 
on  the  sizes  and  shapes  of  letters.  Thus  since  the  n  in 
the  word  ins,  and  the  v  in  the  word  vw,  “Hear!”  are 
lengthened  in  Deut.  vi.  4,  we  are  told  that  this  is  meant 
(i.)  to  show  the  greatness  of  the  doctrine ;  (ii.)  to  show  the 
power  of  God  in  the  four  quarters  of  the  world  (n  =  4)  ; 
and  (iii.)  because  y  and  n  make  up  the  word  ny,  “  a  witness.” 
We  find  a  curious  instance  of  architectonic  Gematria  in 
Josephus,  who,  in  referring  to  Dan.  ix.  27,  alludes  to  the 
Jewish  belief  that  the  Jewish  Temple  would  be  destroyed 
whenever  it  was  made  rectangular,  because  4  being  the 
signature  of  the  world  contradicts  the  idea  of  the  sanctuary. 
Now  the  Temple  became  rectangular  when  the  Zealots 
destroyed  the  tower  of  Antonia/ 

1  Yoma,  f.  20,  1. 

2  Rev.  xiii.  18.  666  =  *!Dp  Nero  Caesar ;  Iren.  Eaer.  v.  30  ; 

Sulp.  Sev.  E.  S.  ii.  29  ;  Orac.  Sibyll.  i.  325.  ’1770-0  vs  —  888. 

3  Etheridge  refers  to  Skichard’s  Bcchinain  Eapperushim,  p.  65,  for  some 
curious  particulars.  Ecbr.  Lit.  p.  354. 

4  This  figurative  Gematria  is  called  In  their  minute  attentions  to 

trivialities  the  Scribes  registered  the  important  fact  that  only  two  verses  of 
the  Law  begin  with  D  (Ex.  xxxii.  8  ;  Num.  xiv.  19). 

8  Jos.  B.  J.  vi.  6,  §  4.  The  “desolating  wing  (PpD)  of  abomination” 
was  rendered  “ corner  of  abomination.”  Comp.  Philo,  Vit.  Mos.  p.  142; 
Hausrath,  i.  123. 


Notarikon. 


101 


ii.  Notarikon  was  another  Kabbalistic  method.  The  name 
is  borrowed  from  Notarius,  “a  shorthand  writer,”  because 
these  writers  used  letters  to  stand  for  words.1  It  consisted  in 
forming  words  by  the  combination  of  initial  and  terminal 
letters,  or  by  regarding  each  letter  of  a  word  as  the  initial 
letter  of  other  words.  The  famous  symbol  l^Qv 9  is  an 
instance  of  a  word  thus  interpreted,2  and  it  enabled  Chris¬ 
tians  to  recognise  one  another.  Notarikon  is  mentioned  in 
the  Mishna,  and  in  Bereshith  Rabba,  §  46,  it  is  discussed 
whether  it  was  known  to  Abraham.3  A  few  specimens  will 
suffice.  In  Gen.  ii.  3  the  letters  of  ElohiM  LaasotH  are  com¬ 
bined  into  Emeth,  “  Truth.  The  letters  of  Adam  are  made 
to  stand  for  Adam,  David,  Messiah,  so  that  Adam’s  soul  is 
said  to  have  passed  into  those  of  David  and  the  Messiah.4 
In  Ps.  lxxvii.  21,  the  word  “Thou  leddest  ”  (jvn:)  is  made 
to  stand  for  Wonder,  Life,  Sea,  Law,5  to  imply  that  God 
had  wrought  Wonders  for  His  people,  given  them  Life, 
divided  the  Sea,  and  given  the  Law,  through  Moses  and 
Aaron.  Some  derived  the  name  Maccabee  from  Mi 
Kamoka  Baelim  Yehovah,  “  Who  among  the  gods  is 
like  unto  thee,  O  Lord?”  (Ex.  xv.  II).6  These  methods 
remain  in  full  force  among  the  Talmudic  Jews  to  this 
day.  Annually,  on  the  day  of  Atonement,  the  Polish  Jews 
observe  “  the  Atonement  of  the  Cock,”  7  and  the  head  of 

1  See  Buxtorf,  Lex.  Talm.  s.v.  flpntM.  Rabbi  Nathan  defines  it  as  being 
practised  “  when  one  letter  is  made  to  stand  for  an  entire  thing.”  The  name 
Naphtali  is  thus  made  to  mean  “My  prayer  is  here  accepted  before  the  Lord,” 
and  anokt,  “  I  ”  is  made  to  stand  for  “  I  myself  wrote  and  gave  it.” 

“  ’It i<tovs  XpiaTos  QeoC  Tibs  2wt r/p.  The  Greeks  were,  as  Plutarch  says, 
familiar  with  these  arj/xeia  iv  Ppaxecri  tvttols  ttoAAwv  ypafxpi.dTcov  bvvau.iv 

tx°vra- 

3  Shabbath,  xii.  5. 

Nishmath  Chajim,  f.  152,  2.  Similarly  the  soul  of  Cain  passed  into 
those  of  Jethro  ('),  Korah  (p),  and  the  Mizraim-  ite  (ft)  whom  Moses  slew. 
Yalqut  Reubcni.  Another  notarikon  applied  to  the  name  said  that  it  stood  for 
Dust,  Blood,  Bitterness  (1?X?  Dl^  Hlft).  The  use  of  Notarikon  continued, 

even  among  the  Fathers  ;  as  when  'Abd.pL  is  said  to  imply  the  four  quarters  of 
the  world,  ’ Apurds,  bvcris,  avaroAr),  pLeanpL&pla. 

5  d-d:,  D”n,  d\  min, 

6  For  other  instances,  see  Budaeus,  Philos.  Ebraeorum,  p.  323  ;  Buxtorf, 
Be  Abbreviating,  p.  58  ;  Reuchlin,  Be  Cabbala ,  iii.  ;  Chiarini,  i.  57  :  Ham¬ 
burger,  Realuort.  s.v.  Schrift. 

7  Because  in  one  passage  of  the  Talmud  12:  (“  a  man”)  is  used  for  “a 

cock”.  . 


102 


Temoorah. 


the  household,  whirling  a  cock  round  his  head,  exclaims : 
“  Chalaphathi,  Temarathi,  Kapparathi,”  “  This  is  my  substi¬ 
tute,  my  commutation,  my  atonement.’'  The  initial  letters  of 
these  words  make  the  word  Chathak,  “  to  cut,”  and  conse¬ 
quently  the  Angel  of  Death  is  called  Chatak  (inn).  The 
word  is  still  more  surrounded  by  mystic  associations,  because 
by  Gematria  it  yields  the  number  428,  which  is  also  furnished 
by  the  Hebrew  words,  “  This  shall  be  an  atonement  for 
thee.”  1 

iii.  The  word  Temoorah,  or  “  change,”  2  is  used  for  an  exe- 
getical  method  which  evolves  new  meanings  by  an  interchange 
of  letters.  Thus  in  Ps.  xxi.  2,  “  The  king  shall  rejoice  in  Thy 
strength,  0  Lord,”  refers  to  "  the  Messiah  ”  by  transposing 
(shall  rejoice)  into  Mashiach.  In  Ex.  xxiii.  23,  “  my 
angel”  is  transposed  into  Michael,  as  also  is  the  name 

Malachi ! 3  “  Clierem”  “  a  ban,”  becomes  by  Temoorah 

racham,  “pity,”  implying  that  there  is  always  room  for 
repentance  ;  or  into  ramach ,  of  which  the  numerical  equiva¬ 
lent  is  248,  showing  that  if  a  man  do  not  repent  the  curse 
will  smite  the  248  parts  of  the  body.  Reuchlin  argued  the 
Divinity  of  Christ  from  the  fact  that  Jesus  (Joshua)  in 
Hebrew  (WiY>)  gives  the  name  Jehovah,  and  the  letter  w, 
which  stands  for  “  fire,”  and  is  a  symbol  of  the  Logos.4  Often 
the  method  becomes  one  of  simple  anagram,  as  when  the 
names  Balaam  Balak  are  turned  into  “  Yalley  of  Confusion.”5 
It  is  possible  that  the  New  Testament  furnishes  us  with  an 
instance  of  Temoorah  in  Rev.  xvi.  16,  where  the  mysterious 

1  mss1?  vrp  nt.  The  name  of  this  angel  is  also  given  by  the  final 
letters  of  HN  niYlQ,  “  Thou  openest  thine  hand,”  Ps.  clxv.  16.  I  take 
this  modern  instance,  which  shows  the  extraordinary  vitality  of  these  methods, 
from  Hershon’s  Treasures  of  the  Talmud ,  p.  107.  It  is  a  curious  fact,  which 
may  here  be  mentioned  in  passing,  that  many  Kabbalists  became  Christians, 
because  the  Trinity,  the  Atonement,  &c.,  are  supposed  to  be  deducible  by 
these  processes,  but  much  more  because  they  are  said  to  be  implied  in  the 
Zohar.  Among  them  were  Ricci,  Otto,  Rittengal  (a  grandson  of  Abrabane’l), 
who  translated  the  Jetsira  into  Latin  ;  and  Jacob  Frank,  who  took  with  him 
some  thousands  of  his  followers.  Beer,  Gesch.  d.  rel.  Secten  d.  Juden,  ii.  309 

2  Called  by  some  "|12n,  “  inversion.” 

3  See  Nachmanides  in  Kitto’s  Cyclop. 

*  The  name  Jesus  is  however  in  Hebrew. 

c  ^3  ppy. 

•  •  • 


A  thbash. 


103 


word  Armageddon  may  be  meant  for  Harmagedol,  i.e.  Roma 
Haggedolah,  Rome  the  Great.  The  names  are  also  iso- 
psephic,  for  by  Gematria  they  are  both  equivalent  to  304.1 

The  commonest  application  of  Temoorah  consists,  how¬ 
ever,  in  substituting  for  each  letter  in  a  word  the  letter  which 
stands  in  an  equivalent  order  in  the  other  half  of  the  alpha¬ 
bet.2  This  was  called  Athbash,  Albam,  and  Atbach,  &c. 
The  chief  interest  of  the  method  lies  in  the  fact  that  there 
seem  to  be  three  instances  of  it  in  the  Bible.  Thus  in 
Jer.  xxv.  26,  li.  41,  the  word  Sheshach  has  always  been 
understood  to  be  a  cypher  for  Babel,  to  which  by  Athbash  it 
is  equivalent.  No  Christian  interpreter  had  any  notion  what 
it  meant  till  Jerome  learned  the  secret  from  his  Jewish 
teacher.  Again  in  Jer.  li.  1,  the  meaningless  expression, 
u  them  that  dwell  in  the  midst  of  them  that  rise  up  against  me,” 
becomes  luminous  if  for  leb-lcamai  we  substitute  by  Athbash 
the  word  Kasdim ,  or  Chaldeans  (see  v.  35).3  Similarly 
an  application  of  the  cipher  Albam  explains  an  otherwise 
mysterious  name  in  Is.  vii.  6.  Ephraim,  Syria,  and  the 
son  of  Remaliah  there  take  evil  counsel  to  attack  Judah 
and  set  up  as  king  “  the  son  of  Tabeal .”  Who  was  this 
Tabeal  whose  name  never  occurs  elsewhere  ?  Mr.  Cheyne 
says  that  “  he  was  evidently  a  Syrian ;  the  name  in 
Syriac  means  “  God  is  good,”  just  as  Tav-Rimmon  means 
“  Rimmon  is  good.”  Dr.  Kay  even  conjectures  that  he 
was  a  descendant  of  Naaman,  and  others  that  he  was  a 
powerful  Ephraimite,  perhaps  Zichri  (2  Chron.  xxviii. 
7).  Apply  the  Albam,  however,  and  for  Tabeal  (SaxB)  we 
get  which  may  well  be  the  same  as  Remaliah,  either 

used  by  Isaiah  as  a  scornful  variation,  or  because  it  may 

'  Hausratli,  New  Test.  Times,  i.  117. 

2  Thus  in  Athbash  for  a.b.g.d.,  &c.,  are  substituted  the  corresponding 
letters  at  the  opposite  end  of  the  alphabet,  namely  Til,  sii,  R,  &c.  In  Albam, 
a.b.g.d.,  kc.,  are  exchanged  with  l.m.n.s.,  &c.  R.  Chija,  the  Tanaite,  is  said 
to  have  invented  the  Athbash  (Sukka,  f.  52,  2),  but  probably  it  was  much 
older.  There  are  no  fewer  than  twenty-four  different  kinds  of  this 
Themoorah. 

3  Ewald  may  be  right  in  supposing  that  the  use  of  these  Kabbalistic 
methods  in  Jer.  xxv.  26,  li.  41,  is  due  not  to  Jeremiah,  but  to  the  Babylonian 
editor  of  his  book.  Prophctcn  d.  Alien  Bundes,  ii.  247  ;  iii.  141. 


104 


Plays  on  Words. 


have  originally  been  the  secret  watchword  of  the  powerful 
conspiracy. 

In  these  instances  we  have  only  the  traces  of  a  cypher 
suggested  by  policy  or  terror.  In  some  cases,  however,  these 
anagrammatic  alphabets  have  been  used  from  time  imme¬ 
morial  to  explain  certain  passages  of  Scripture.1  Thus,  in 
Prov.  xxix.  21,  where  it  is  said  that  “  a  petted  slave  will  at 
last  become  a  man’s  son,”  the  word  rendered  “son,” 
occurs  here  only.  Some  suppose  it  to  mean  “  refractory,”  or 
“  ungrateful,”  and  Luther  happily  renders  it  “  so  will  er 
damach  ein  Junker  seyn .”  But  by  applying  another  Kabbalistic 
alphabet  (. Atbach ) 2  we  get  for  mdnon  the  word  ‘TpS,  gnehdah, 
“  testimony,”  and  the  verse  may  be  rendered  “He  who  satisfies 
his  desire  in  this  world  against  him  it  will  testify  at  the  end 
and  this  comment  is  as  old  as  the  Talmud. 

Besides  all  these  methods  there  was  yet  another  which 
consisted  in  altering  the  words  of  the  text  into  others 
which  resembled  them.  It  is  strange  that  this  absolutely 
arbitrary  device  for  making  the  Scriptures  say  exactly 
what  the  interpreter  wished  to  make  them  say  was 
defended  on  the  same  principle  of  letter- worship  as  that 
which  lay  at  the  root  of  the  whole  system.  The  method  was 
indefinitely  facilitated  by  the  plasticity  of  wnrds  in  which 
the  vowel -points  could  be  altered  in  many  ways.  Thus  the 
Bible  was  forced  to  imply  thousands  of  things  of  which  its 
writers  never  dreamed.3  On  the  pretence  that  every  word  of 
it  wras  supernaturally  communicated  by  God,  it  wTas  asserted 
that  if  words  sounded  at  all  like  other  wrords,  that  secondary 
meaning  must  also  be  implied !  Hence  the  incessant  Rab¬ 
binic  formula,  “Bead  not  so,  but  so.” 4  Maimonides  says  that 

1  Sukka,  52,  2  ;  Ginsburg,  Elias  Levita,  p.  191,  ands.i;.  Midrash  in  Kitto  ; 
and  Kabbalah,  p.  54  ;  Hamburger  I.  s.v.  Schrift. 

-  For  Atbach  see  Buxtorf,  De  Abbnviaturis,  and  Dr.  Ginsburg  in  Kitto,  s.v. 

3  As  when  the  initial  words  of  were  made  to  stand  for  3N  fTP  i2 
(Father,  Spirit,  Son,)  and  so  used  as  an  argument  in  favour  of  the  Trinity  ;  or 
as  when  the  Jews  said  that  the  world  was  created  on  the  first  of  Tisri,  because 
the.  first  word  of  Genesis,  Bereshitli,  can  be  transposed  into  Bethisri.  See 
Glassius,  Philolog.  Sacr.  425,  438. 

4  p  T3  npn  Hirsclifeld  says,  “  Man  konnte  etwas  covjiciren 

und  verdndern,  iudem  man  sagte,  Weun  man  die  Worte  verandert  oder 


Degraded  Bibliolatry. 


105 


the  intention  was  not  to  destroy  the  Biblical  reading,  hut  to 
add  to  it  a  poetic  (!)  figure.1  Thus,  in  Is.  ii.  22,  “  for  wherein 
is  he  to  be  accounted  of,”  by  reading  •W?,  “  a  high  place,”  for 
“  wherein/’  they  get  the  deduction  that  whoever  salutes 
his  neighbour  before  prayer  makes  him  as  it  were  a  high 
place ! 2  And  if  they  desire  to  glorify  the  Sabbath  they 
read,  “  Blessed  is  the  man  that  keepeth  the  Sabbath,  and  he 
shall  be  pardoned ,”  instead  of  “that  keepeth  the  Sabbath 
from  polluting  it .”  3 

VII.  The  results  of  our  long  inquiry  are  very  saddening.  We 
have  seen  something  alike  of  the  methods  and  of  the  results 
of  exegesis  as  practised  for  nearly  2,000  years  by  the  very 
nation  to  which  were  entrusted  “the  oracles  of  God.”  We 
have  been  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  the  methods  have  been 
for  the  most  part  radically  untenable,  the  results  all  but  abso¬ 
lutely  valueless.4  The  letter-worship  and  the  traditionalism, 
which  date  their  origin  from  the  days  of  Ezra,  the  idolatry 
of  the  Law,  the  exaltation  of  ceremonial,  the  quenching  of 
the  living  and  mighty  spirit  of  prophecy,  the  pedantry,  the 
tyranny,  the  exclusiveness,  the  haughty  self-exaltation  of 
Babbinism,  the  growth  of  an  extravagant  reverence  for  the 
oral  rules  which  formed  the  “hedge  about  the  Law,”  are 
results  in  themselves  deplorable ;  but  they  become  still  more 
deplorable  when  we  see  that  meanwhile  all  that  was  essential, 
divine,  and  spiritual  in  the  Law  was  set  at  naught  by  human 
inventions.  Exegesis  became  a  mere  art  of  leading  astray. 
It  ended  in  Pharisaism  with  all  its  fatal  evils,  substituting  an 
empty  externalism  for  the  religion  of  the  heart,  making  more 
of  fringes  and  phylacteries  than  of  justice,  mercy,  and  truth. 
The  profession  of  Bibliolatry  slowly  but  surely  undermined 

umstellt  so  giebt  es  einem  Sinn  und  eine  Bedeutung  ah,  die  genau  iiberein, 
stimmt  mit  dem  was  man  in  der  Bibel  erwartete  !  ”  Halach.  Exegcsc,  164. 

1  Moreh  Nerochim,  iii  43.  See  Eisenmenger,  Entd.  Judenth.  i.  c.  8. 

2  Berakhoth,  f.  14,  1.  .  .  .  . 

3  In  Is.  lvi.  2,  by  reading  1/  for  1?bnD.  In  the  same  verse  by 

reading  Enos  for  “the  man,”  they  argue  that  even  an  idolater  (Gen.  iv.  26) 
shall  be  forgiven  if  he  keeps  the  Sabbath. 

4  “The  rules  for  this  exegesis  afforded  as  great  a  facility  for  introducing 
into  the  text,  as  for  deducing  from  it,  any  and  every  imaginable  conceit.” 
Giusburg,  CohEleih ,  p  30. 


106 


Futile  Results. 


the  Bible  which  it  nominally  worshipped.  The  long 
labours  and  discussions  of  Soplierim,  Tanaim,  Amoraim, 
Saboraim,  and  Gaonim  have  left  but  a  minimum  of  valuable 
result.  The  Halakha  was  void  of  all  spiritual  significance. 
Ceremonialism  flourished  under  its  auspices,  but  morality 
decayed.1  The  sepulchre  glistened  white,  but  within  it 
was  full  of  dead  men’s  bones.  The  Haggada,  though  it 
had  nobler  elements,  lost  itself  in  monstrous  combinations, 
and  buried  the  natural  simplicity  of  the  Scripture  narrative 
under  masses  of  legendary  distortion.  The  Qabbala  was 
an  arbitrary  mysticism  which  led  to  nothing  but  delusion, 
and  was  devoid  of  any  foundation  in  any  one  of  its 
developments.  It  is  true  that  we  must  not  take  literally  all 
that  we  find  in  the  Rabbinic  writings.  They  abound  in 
unsolved  enigmas,  and  doubtless  had  many  meanings  to 
which  in  the  course  of  ages  we  have  lost  the  key.2  The 
fact,  however,  remains — that  volumes  might  be  filled  with 
thousands  of  specimens  of  Rabbinic  exegesis,  of  which  it 
would  be  difficult  to  say  whether  they  be  most  baseless  in 
method,  or  most  wide  of  all  truth  in  the  conclusions  formed. 
We  should  be  paying  to  Talmudism  too  high  a  compliment, 
were  we  to  say  that  it  is  like 

“The  pleached  bower, 

Where  honeysuckles  ripened  by  the  sun 
Forbid  the  sun  to  enter.” 

The  most  distinctive  flowers  of  the  Talmud  are  artificial 
flowers — flowers  by  which  we  cannot  for  a  moment  be 
deceived. 


1  See  Psalm.  Solomon,  iv.  3,  4  ;  viii.  9-11  (Hilgenfeld,  Messicts  Judacorum. 

p.  12). 

2  Towards  the  close  of  the  fifteenth  century  many  Christians  like  Mirandola 
and  Eeuchlin  were  eager  to  study  the  Qabbala,  and  Elias  Levita  was  patron¬ 
ised  by  Cardinal  Egidius  de  Viterbo.  Mirandola  thought  that  he  found 
“  more  Christianity  than  Judaism  in  the  Qabbala — the  Trinity,  Incarnation, 
original  sin,  redemption,  Angelology,  Purgatory,”  &c.,  “  in  fact  the  same 
gospel  which  we  find  in  St.  Paul,  Dionysius,  St.  Jerome,  and  St.  Augustine.” 
Pope  Sixtus  IV.  wished  the  Kabbalistic  writings  to  he  rendered  into  Latin. 
See  Ginsburg,  The  Massorcth  Ha  Massorcth  of  Elias  Levita,  Introd.  p.  12.  If 
there  be  anything  distinctively  Christian  in  Kabtalism,  it  is  historically 
derivable  from  Christianity  itself. 


The  Judgment  of  Christ. 


107 


To  the  Jewish  scholars  we  owe  indeed  the  boon  of  a  text 
preserved  to  the  utmost  of  their  power :  we  owe  the  priceless 
labour  of  the  earlier  Massorets,  and  the  philological  know¬ 
ledge  of  those  mediaeval  Rabbis  who  furnished  the  grammars 
and  lexicons  on  which,  after  fifteen  centuries  of  Christianity, 
a  sounder  exegetic  method  was  gradually  built.  Indirectly 
too  they  have  preserved  for  us  in  their  writings  many  tradi¬ 
tional  facts  of  an  interest  and  importance  greater  than  have 
yet  been  fully  understood.  But  even  the  most  favourable 
estimate  must  reluctantly  admit  that  their  writings  are 
principally  valuable  to  the  historian,  the  archaeologist,  and 
the  student  of  psychology,  and  that  it  is  indirectly  far  more 
than  directly  that,  from  the  days  of  Ezra  to  the  days  of 
Maimonides,  they  have  furnished  us  with  anything  of  intrinsic 
value  for  the  right  apprehension  of  Holy  Writ. 

Is  that  a  harsh  judgment  ?  Nay,  it  is  the  judgment  of 
Himself.  Even  in  the  days  of  the  Son  of  Man  the  exegetic 
principles  which  find  their  full  development  in  the  Talmud 
and  the  Midrash  formed  the  main  elements  of  the  popular 
religionism.  And  Christ’s  judgment  of  those  principles  was 
luminous  and  emphatic.  It  was  “  Why  do  ye  transgress  the 
commandment  of  God  by  your  tradition  ?  ” 1  It  was  “  Ye  have 
made  void  the  Law  of  God  because  of  your  tradition.”  2  It 
was  “  In  vain  do  they  worship  Me,  teaching  as  their  doctrine 
the  precepts  of  men.”  3  It  was  “  Ye  read  the  Scriptures  and 
ye  will  not  come  unto  Me.” 4 


1  Matt.  xv.  3. 
3  Matt.  xv.  9. 


2  Matt.  xv.  6. 

4  John  v.  39,  40. 


“  There  was  a  flute  in  the  Temple  preserved  from  the  days  of  Moses, 
smooth,  thin,  formed  of  a  reed.  At  the  command  of  the  king  it  was 
overlaid  with  gold,  which  made  the  sound  less  pleasant.  There  was  also 
a  cymbal  and  a  mortar,  preserved  from  the  time  of  Moses  which  had 
become  injured.  Workmen  of  Alexandria  were  sent  for  by  the  wise 
men,  who  mended  them  ;  but  this  so  impaired  their  efficiency  that  they 
had  to  be  restored  to  their  former  condition.” — Eirechin,  f.  10,  2. 

u  Lacte  gypsum  male  miscetur.” — Iren. 


’E£  ov  ($>l\covos)  olpat  <a\  nas  6  aWr/yopiKos  kv  ! EK/cA^cria  Xoyor  eo-^ev 
upx*lu  Cirrpvrjvai. — Photius,  Cod.  cv. 


“  tovto  crvfiTrav  to  cxXoctucov  ....  — CLEM.  ALEX.  Strom.  1  c.  7, 

§  37. 


2ye§ov  yap  ranavra  r/  ra  n Xeicrra  -779  vopodecrias  aWr/yopeiToi. — PHILO, 
De  Josepho ,  §  6. 


LECTURE  III. 


ALEXANDRIAN  EXEGESIS. 

“  In  that  day  shall  there  be  an  altar  to  the  Lord  in  the  midst  of  the  land 
of  Egypt,  and  a  pillar  at  the  border  thereof  to  the  Lord.” — Is.  xix.  19. 

The  great  secular  tendencies  of  Exegesis  among  the  Jews 
fall  under  two  wddely  different  divisions. 

One  of  these,  that  of  the  Rabbis  of  Palestine  and  Babylon, 
was  national,  orthodox,  indigenous,  of  which  in  the  last  Lecture 
we  traced  the  growth  and  considered  the  methods.  Their  aim 
was,  as  wre  have  seen,  to  interpret  and  to  develop  the  sacred 
books  by  the  methods  of  the  Halakha,  the  Haggada,  and  the 
Qabbala,  and  the  main  monuments  of  their  labours  are  the 
Talmud,  the  Targums,  the  Midrashim,  and  the  beginnings  of 
the  Massora. 

The  other  great  stream  of  exegetic  tendency  was  the 
Alexandrian.  It  represented  the  workings  of  the  Jewish 
mind  when  it  no  longer  maintained  its  rigid  and  exclusive 

o  o 

jealousy  of  foreign  influences,  but  had  absorbed  into  its  very 
life-blood  the  wisdom  of  the  Greeks.  It  is  of  extreme  interest 
and  importance,  because,  even  more  than  Palestinian  ex¬ 
egesis,  it  left  deep  traces  on  the  Biblical  studies  of  the 
Christian  Church.  Its  chief  monument  is  the  writings  of 
Philo. 

1.  The  Dispersion  of  the  Chosen  People,  which  familiarised 
the  world  with  a  purer  morality  and  a  monotheistic  faith, 
was  one  of  the  methods  of  the  divine  economy  for  preparing 


112 


The  Dispersion. 


the  way  of  the  Lord  and  making  straight  in  the  desert  a 
highway  for  our  God.  The  political  unity  given  to  the 
government  of  many  nations  by  the  rise  of  the  Roman  Empire, 
and  the  unity  of  language  created  by  the  conquests  of 
Alexander,  helped  to  further  the  same  great  end.  The 
letters  of  Hebrew,  and  Greek,  and  Latin  above  the  Cross  were 
a  symbol  of  the  testimony  given  to  Christ  by  the  three 
noblest  languages  of  the  ancient  world. 

But  the  great  providential  end — the  spread  of  the  King¬ 
dom  of  God — could  never  have  been  achieved  if  the  Jews 
of  the  Dispersion  had  retained  that  attitude  of  isolation 
which  it  had  been  the  main  object  of  Rabbinism  to  secure. 
If  outside  the  range  of  Rabbinism  “  the  hedge  about  the  law  ” 
had  not  been  broken  into  and  trampled  down  in  every  direction, 
millions  of  Jews  could  never  have  adopted  Greek  customs 
and  Greek  conceptions,  nor  could  they  have  facilitated  the 
triumph  of  a  world-religion  over  the  superstitions  of  a  decaying 
Paganism.  In  vain  did  the  Rabbis  of  Jerusalem  endeavour 
to  stem  the  advancing  tide  of  Hellenic  influences  among 
their  countrymen.  The  memorable  eighteen  ordinances,  dis¬ 
cussed  in  the  school  of  Rabbi  Hananiah  shortly  before  the 
fall  of  Jerusalem,1  had  been  opposed  by  the  milder  Hillelites, 
but  they  had  been  passed  amid  blows  and  bloodshed,  and 
their  express  object  was  to  cleave  a  yet  deeper  rift  of  difference 
between  the  Jews  and  the  heathen.  But  all  such  precautions 
were  in  vain.  The  drift  of  universal  tendency  was  against 
them.  The  will  of  God,  clearly  manifested  in  the  progress  of 
events,  and  revealed  yet  more  clearly  by  the  teaching  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  showed  that  the  day  was  come  when  Mosaism 
was  to  be  abrogated.  We  have  already  seen  that  the  system 
so  jealously  maintained  by  the  Rabbis  was  not  Mosaism 
at  all,  but  an  immense  superstructure  of  precedents  per- 

1  The  Shemoneh  Esreh  ;  Shabbath,  i.  7  ;  Griitz,  iii.  494  ;  Derenbourg,  274. 
It  was  asserted  that  120  elders,  and  among  them  several  prophets,  had  a  share 
in  composing  them.  Megilla,  f.  17,  2.  Samuel  the  Little  took  special  part 
in  them.  Berakhoth,  f.  27,  2.  These  ordinances,  to  which  the  Mishna  only 
alludes,  are  found  in  a  baraUa  of  It.  Simeon  ben  Jochai  in  the  second  centur)'. 
They  consist  of  prohibitions  which  rendered  all  intercourse  between  Pagan 
and  orthodox  Jews  impossible.  See  Life  of  St.  Paul,  i.  129. 


113 


Widening  Sympathies. 

vaded  by  a  different  and  less  noble  spirit  than  that  of  Moses, 
and  built  only  upon  the  drifting  sand  of  fragments  and 
inferences.  Such  a  system  was  useless  for  mankind. 

But  meanwhile  God  became  His  own  Interpreter.  The 
little  corner  of  the  Mediterranean,  bulwarked  with  sea, 
mountains,  and  deserts,  in  which  for  two  thousand  years  He 
had  kept  alive  some  knowledge  of  His  name,  became  the 
battle-field  of  heathen  conquerors.  The  Chosen  People  were 
carried  away  captive,  and  the  faith  which  had  been  cherished 
in  their  narrow  borders  went  forth  in  its  glory  and  its 
consummation  to  conquer  the  whole  world.1 

But  long  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  a  complete 
change  had  come  over  the  views,  feelings,  and  habits  of  the 
most  cultivated  children  of  the  Dispersion.  Commerce  had 
become  universal  among  them,  and  commerce  is  the  great 
disseminator  of  cosmopolitan  ideas.  It  had  for  this  very 
reason  been  discouraged  by  Moses  in  the  days  when  the 
mission  of  Israel  had  been  to  retain  and  not  to  diffuse  the 
revelation  of  the  One  True  God.  Of  the  Hellenists  of  the 
Dispersion,  some,  indeed,  strove  to  keep  alive  among  them¬ 
selves  the  Hebraising  views  of  the  narrowest  schools  of 
Jerusalem,  but  the  great  majority  learnt,  even  insensibly  and 
unconsciously,  the  lessons  of  circumstance.  They  kept  up 
respectful  relations  with  the  old  hierarchy,  but  they  moved  in 
a  different  world.  They  could  not  sweep  away  the  songs  and 
philosophy  of  Hellas  as  mere  “  books  of  outsiders.”  2  When 
once  they  had  become  familiar  with  the  sunlight  of  Attic 
literature  there  could  not  but  ensue  some  lifting  of  the 
heavy  fogs  of  Rabbinic  Scholasticism.  They  could  not  fail 
to  unlearn  the  tenets  of  a  narrow  particularism,  and  to  feel 
that — 

“  All  knowledge  is  not  couched  in  Moses’  law, 

The  Pentateuch,  or  what  the  Prophets  wrote. 

The  Gentiles  also  know,  and  write,  and  teach, 

To  admiration,  taught  by  Nature’s  light.” 

It  was  only  in  virtue  of  this  widened  sympathy  that  the 
different-coloured  streams  of  Judaism  and  Hellenism  mingled 

1  Keim,  Jem  von  Nazara ,  i.  205.  2  D'JlVn  CHSD. 

I 


114 


Alexandria. 


their  waters  in  a  common  lake.  Alexandrian  Judaism  was 
Judaism  tinged  with  Hellenic  culture,  and  from  Alexandrian 

Judaism  were  developed  the  learned  schools  of  Alexandrian 

\ 

Christianity. 

For  it  was  almost  exclusively  in  the  splendid  city  of 
Alexandria  that  the  fusion  of  Greek  philosophy  and  Jewish 
religion  took  place.  Egypt  had  been  the  House  of  Bondage 
for  the  fathers,  but  it  became,  as  a  Jewish  historian  has  ex¬ 
pressed  it,  a  School  of  Wisdom  for  the  children.1 

The  conquests  of  Alexander  were  not  like  those  which  merely 
disturbed  for  a  moment  the  dreams  of  the  brooding  East.2 
They  produced  on  the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean  a  cordial 
interchange  of  Greek  and  Eastern  ideas.3 4  By  the  founding 
of  Alexandria,  “the  great  Emathian  Conqueror”  left  his 
deepest  mark  upon  human  history d  Its  commodious  harboui, 
its  noble  Pharos,  its  magnificent  buildings,  its  regular 
structure,  its  healthy  climate,  its  supply  of  puie  water,  its 
unrivalled  position,  made  its  market  a  rendezvous  for  the 
merchants  of  the  world.  The  patronage  of  art  and  literature 
by  the  first  Ptolemies,  the  magnificent  encouragement  of 
research  by  the  Lectures  and  Libraries  of  the  Serapeium,  the 
Museum  with  its  400,000  volumes,5  the  free  toleration 
accorded  to  Oriental  theosophy,  to  Greek  culture,  to  J ewish 
faith,  made  it  a  hotbed  of  intellectual  excitement.  In 


1  Gratz.  Philo  talks  of  ^fierepa  ’AA e^auSpela.  Leg.  ad  Gaium,  §22. 

2  “  The  East  bowed  low  before  the  blast, 

In  patient,  deep  disdain  ; 

She  let  the  legions  thunder  past, 

Then  plunged  in  thought  again.” 

— Matthew  Arnold. 

3  Many  Greek  words  are  transliterated  in  the  Talmud,  and  it  contains  not  a 
few  purely  Greek  conceptions.  See  Low,  Pxalct.  Einl.  129.  Many  eminent 
Rabbis  bore  Greek  names  (Alexander,  Antigonus,  Trypho,  Aristobulos, 
Euthunes,  &c.).  Three  chests  in  Herod’s  temple  were  marked  a,  0,  y. 

4  On  the  civilising  and  cosmopolitan  mission  of  Alexander,  see  Plutarch, 
Be  Alex.  Virt.  §16;  Oehler,  s.v.  Volk.  Gottes  (Herzog).  On  ^Alexandria 
generally,  see  Strabo,  xvii.  1  ;  Diodorus,  xvii.  52  ;  Pliny,  H.  N.  v.  10,  &c. 
All  that  is  important  as  bearing  on  our  subject  may  be  seen  in  Hausrath, 
Neut.  Zeitg.  Die  Zeit  d.  Apostel,  i.  124,  sq. 

5  For  an  amusing  sketch  of  Alexandrian  lecture-rooms,  see  Philo,  Be  Cong. 

Erud.  Grat.  §  13  ;  Dahne,  i.  9. 


115 


The  Jews  of  Alexandria. 

Alexandria  the  people  of  Moses  met  the  pupils  of  Aristotle 
and  the  followers  of  Zoroaster.  The  city  became  the  common 
cradle  of  Poets  and  Geometricians,  of  Critics  and  Atheists,  of 
Philonians  and  Neoplatonists,  of  Gnostics  and  of  the  scholars 
of  Origen.1 

To  the  Jews  the  city  offered  special  attractions.  Eight 
thousand  of  them  had  been  settled  in  the  Thebais  by  Alex¬ 
ander  the  Great.2  The  wise  policy  of  the  House  of  Lagos  had 
given  them  a  free  citizenship  and  had  protected  them  in  their 
growing  prosperity  from  the  suspicion,  rivalry,  and  hatred 
which  it  seems  to  be  the  destiny  of  the  Jewish  race  to 
excite  in  all  the  peoples  among  whom  they  settle.3  Before 
the  Christian  era  they  had  increased  to  a  million  souls.  They 
occupied  two  of  the  five  districts  of  Alexandria,4  and  almost 
as  a  matter  of  course,  they  had  absorbed  the  chief  share  in 
the  traffic  of  the  city.  They  had  especially  secured  the 
pecuniary  monopoly  of  the  corn-ships  which  carried  the 
harvests  of  Egypt  to  the  granaries  of  Rome.5  Their  Alabarch 
became  a  person  of  great  distinction,6  and  their  Sanhedrin 
sat  in  an  unequalled  Synagogue  “  on  golden  seats  frequent 
and  full.”  7 

1  See  the  remarkable  letter  of  the  Emperor  Adrian  to  Severianus,  in  which 
he  says  (with  great  exaggeration)  that  the  Christians  and  the  worshippers  of 
Serapis  were  hardly  to  be  distinguished  from  each  other,  and  that  alike  these 
and  the  Jews  were  all  mathematici.  See  too  Matter,  Hist,  de  VJSeoU  d’Alex. 
15-23,  and  passim;  M.  J.  Denis,  La  Philos,  de  Orig.  p.  2. 

2  b.c.  332  ;  Jos.  C.  Ap.  ii.  4  ■  B.  J.  ii.  16,  §  4  ;  18,  §  7  ;  Philo,  C.  Place, 
passim  ;  _  Herzfeld,  iii.  _  436,  sq.  ;  Gratz,  iii.  256,  sq.  ;  Jost,  i.  351  sq.  ; 
Ewald,  iv.  308,  sq.  ;  vi.  233,  sq.  Was  this  settlement  of  the  nature  of  a 
“deportation”?  If  so,  it  was  very  humanely  carried  out  (Strabo,  av.  Jos. 
Antt.  xiv.  7,  §  2). 

3  Jos.  Antt.  xii.  1.  According  to  the  highly  exaggerated  statement  of  Pseudo- 
Aristeas,  Ptolemy  Philadelphus  (b.c.  285)  released  more  than  100,000  Jewish 
slaves.  It  is  certain  that  after  the  Battle  of  Ipsus  (b.c.  301)  thousands  of 
Jews  settled  in  Alexandria  (Jos.  C.  Apion,  i.  22),  and  Josephus  said  of  Onias 
and  Dositheus  that  Philometor  intrusted  to  the  Jews  tt)v  BaaiXeiav  tix-qv. 
C.  Ap.  iv.  5. 

4  Philo,  in  Place.  §8.  5  Philo,  in  Flacc.  §  6. 

Jos.  Antt.  xiv.  4,  §§  1-4  ;  vii.  2.  On  the  ill-understood  title,  see 

Gesenius,  s.v.  in  Ersch  and  Gruber,  and  Forcellini,  s.v.  Arabarches. 

7  Gratz,  iii.  20.  Of  the  Temple  of  Onias  not  much  can  be  said.  It  never 
possessed  any  great  importance.  Kuenen,  iii.  183.  “  Whoever  has  not  seen 

the  Great  Synagogue,  of  Alexandria  has  not  seen  the  glory  of  Israel.  Each  of 
the  seventy-one  chairs  was  worth  no  less  than  twenty-one  myriad  talents 
of  gold  !  A  flag  had  to  be  waved  to  show  the  people  when  to  sav  Amen  !  ” 
Sukkah,  f.  51,  2. 


116 


The  Septuagint. 


II.  It  was  natural  that  this  vast  body  of  cultivated  and 
prosperous  Jews,  who  were  equally  ignorant  of  the  Hebrew  in 
which  the  Scripture  lessons  were  read,  and  of  the  Aramaic  into 
which  they  were  translated  by  the  Meturgemans  of  Palestine, 
should  desire  to  possess  their  sacred  books  in  the  Greek 
language,  which  alone  they  understood.  It  is  true  that  there 
was  a  strong  feeling  against  the  translation  of  the  Law  into 
an  unhallowed  tongue,  and  the  strength  of  this  feeling  is 
shown  even  in  the  letter  of  the  Pseudo- Aristeas.  He  makes 
Demetrius  Phalereus  tell  Ptolemy  that  Tlieopompus  had  been 
smitten  with  madness  for  thirty  days  for  introducing  into  his 
history  some  facts  derived  from  an  older  translation  of  the 
Pentateuch  ;  and  that  the  tragedian  Tlieodektes  had  been 
struck  blind  for  expressing  Jewish  truths  in  a  Greek  drama. 
But  arbitrary  religious  convictions  always  give  way  to  human 
convenience  and  necessity.  Common  sense  prevailed  over 
theological  prejudice,  and  the  Version  for  which  the  Rabbis 
kept  an  annual  fast  became  the  richest  blessing  of  their 

fellow-countrymen  throughout  the  world. 

This  is  not  the  place  to  enter  into  the  history  of  the 
Septuagint  version.  It  is,  however,  certain  that,  whether  it 
originated  in  the  daily  needs  of  worship  among  the  Alexandiian 
Jews  or  was  produced  in  obedience  to  the  request  of  the 
Ptolemies  who  wished  to  add  it  to  the  treasures  of  their 
great  Library,  that  famous  translation  became  “the  first 
Apostle  of  the  Gentiles.” 2  As  regards  Judaism,  it  kept 
millions  in  the  faith  of  their  fathers,  so  that  they  neither 
became  Macedonians  in  Philippi  nor  Spaniards  inGades.3  As 
regards  Christianity,  it  exercised  a  powerful  influence  over 
the  language,  and  therefore  also  inevitably  over  the  thoughts, 
of  the  Apostles  and  the  Evangelists.4  Further  than  this  its 


1  As  regards  the  LXX.  the  Talmud  is  self-contradictory.  See  Wogue, 
p.  136. 

2  See  Philo,  Vit.  Mos.  ii.  §  7. 

3  Hausrath,  l.c.  p.  129.  _  v  R 

4  On  the  Septuagint,  see  Clem.  Strom.  1,  9,  §  45  ;  Euseb.  Praep.  Ev.  ix.  6, 
xiii.  12  ;  Aristeae Historia LXX II. ;  Interpr. ; Philo,  Vit.  Mos.  u.  5-8.  Jos.  Antt 
Frol.  §  3,  xii.  2  ;  C.  Ap.  ii.  4  ;  Hody,  Be  Bibl.  Text.  Onentalibus, ,  Oxf. 1/05, 
Frankel,  Vorstudien;  Gratz,  iii.  26-  45,  429-446.  Herzfeld,  Gesch.  d.l  olkes 
Israels,  ii.  534-556  ;  Diihne,  Beligionsphil.  ii.  1-72  ;  Stanley,  Jewish  Chinch, 


The  Septuagint. 


117 


effects  upon  the  exegesis  of  Christendom  can  hardly  be 
exaggerated.  The  universal  acceptance  of  the  fables  about 
its  origin  narrated  in  the  forged  Epistle  of  Aristeas,  the 
supernatural  touches  which  from  time  to  time  were  added  to 
those  fables  by  Philo  and  J osephus,1  the  credulity  with  which 
Justin  Martyr,  followed  by  many  of  the  Fathers,  accepted  the 
inventions  of  the  Alexandrian  guides  about  the  seventy  cells,2 
all  tended  to  deepen  the  disastrous  superstition  as  to  a 
mechanical  and  verbal  dictation  of  the  sacred  books.  The 
Greek  version  is  quoted  to  a  very  large  extent  by  the  writers 
of  the  New  Testament,  even  in  passages  where  it  diverges 
widely  from  the  original,3  and  it  furnished  them  with  not  a 
few  of  the  technical  terms  of  Christian  Theology.  It  was 
partly  on  this  account  that  the  belief  in  its  inspiration,  asserted 
by  Philo4  and  by  the  forged  letter  of  Aristeas,  was  eagerly 
adopted  by  Irenaeus,  Clemens  of  Alexandria,  Epiphanius 
and  Augustine,  and  opposed  in  vain  by  the  better  sense  and 
more  critical  knowledge  of  Jerome.5 

It  is  impossible  that  a  translation  should  convey  to  any 
reader  the  exact  sense  of  the  original.  Even  where  glaring 
errors  are  avoided,  where  the  version  is  faithful,  where  the 
influence  of  religious  or  other  bias  is  resisted,  so  great  is  the 
difference  between  the  shades  of  thought  conveyed  by  words 
in  different  languages,  that  even  the  Son  of  Sirach  in  trans¬ 
lating  the  work  of  his  Grandfather  had  been  forced  to 

iii.  255-262.  The  chief  Talmudic  passage  about  the  LXX.  is  the  curious  one 
Megilla,  f.  9,  1.  For  the  bearing  of  the  word  ycucros  (Josh.  yiii.  18)  on  the 
date  sceHody,  Be  Bibl.  Text ;  Wogue,  Hist,  dc  la  Bible,  pp.  136-1 43  ubi  supra. 

1  Jos.  A ntt.  xii.  2,  §§  2-14  ;  Philo,  Vit.  Mos.  ii.  §  7. 

2  Just.  Mart.  Apol.  13  ;  Ambros.  inPs.  43.  No.  74.  See  Klausen,  Augustinus, 
pp.  74-79.  The  name  Septuagint  may,  as  Hitzig  thinks  ( Gesch .  Volkes  lsr. 
341),  be  due  to  the  sanction  of  the  version  by  the  Alexandrian  Sanhedrin.  The 
date  of  its  earlier  portions  is  about  B.c.  270-250.  The  work  of  some  fifteen 
hands  at  least  may  be  recognised  in  it,  and  the  different  translators  were 
differently  endowed. 

3  Out  of  275  passages  quoted  from  the  0.  T.  in  the  New,  there  are  37 
in  which  the  LXX.  differs  materially  from  the  Hebrew. 

4  Philo,  Vit.  Mos.  ii.  6,  7,  wdiere  he  mentions  the  annual  festival  {kopru 
Kal  ■navqyvpis)  in  honour  of  the  event  in  the  island  of  Pharos. 

5  Iren.  Haer.  iii.  25  ;  Clem.  Alex.  Strom.  1,  9,  §43;  Epiphan.  Be  Pond. 
iii.  6,  9-11  ;  Aug.  Be  Boctr.  Christ,  ii.  15  ;  Be  Civ.  Bci,  xviii.  42  ;  Jer. 
Proof.  in  Pent.  Nescio  quis  primus  auctor  cellulas  Alexandriae  mendacio 
suo  exstruxerit.”  Cf.  Proof .  in  Paralip. 


118 


Dislike  of  the  Septuagint. 


remark  that  “  the  same  things  uttered  in  Hebrew  and  trans- 
lated  in  another  tongue  have  not  the  same  force  in  them  ; 
and  not  only  these  things,  but  the  Law  itself,  and  the 
prophets,  and  the  rest  of  the  books,  have  no  small  difference 
when  they  are  spoken  in  their  own  language.”  2  St.  Jerome, 
for  instance,  had  not  been  guilty  of  any  intentional  unfaith¬ 
fulness  in  rendering  peTavoeire  by  “  poenitentiam  agite ,”  but 
those  words,  from  the  special  connotation  which  they  had 
long  received,  conveyed  to  the  minds  of  Luther  and  of  his 
contemporaries  no  other  sense  than  the  totally  different 
one  “  do  penance.”  It  came  like  a  revelation  to  Luther’s 
mind  when  he  found  that  the  original  word  meant  “  repent ,” 
and  this  was  one  of  the  influences  which  led  him  to  offer  to 
his  native  country  the  translation  of  Scripture  which  has 
formed  her  language. 

The  Jews  early  learnt  to  dislike  the  Septuagint.  The 
Christians  used  it  in  their  Messianic  controversies,  and  even 
accused  the  Jews — quite  groundlessly — of  having  falsified 
the  original  in  passages  which  bore  on  Christian  contro¬ 
versy.  The  Jews  could  easily  justify  themselves  against 
such  a  charge,3  but  their  most  orthodox  Rabbis  soon  began 
to  declare  that  the  translation  of  the  sacred  Law  was  a  crime 
and  a  misfortune  as  bad  for  Israel  as  the  day  on  which  the 
golden  calf  was  made.4  Since  the  disaster  was  no  longer 
reparable,  they  entrenched  themselves,  on  the  one  hand  in 
methods  of  interpretation  which  professed  to  preserve  for 
their  own  possession  the  true  sense  of  Scripture,  and,  on  the 
other,  threw  the  whole  weight  of  their  preference  into  the 
scale  of  the  versions  of  Aquila5  and  of  the  Judaising  heretics, 

1  ov  yap  l(ro$uvafj(.ei  avrd. 

2  Prol.  to  Ecclus.  ov  puKpdv  tx€L  TV  Siacpopav.  Jesus  Ben  Siracli  came  to 
Egypt  in  b.c.  132. 

3  The  rendering  &pv£av,  in  Ps.  xxi.  16  (Aquila,  yaxvvav)>  and  the  non- 
acceptance  of  the  Jewish  reading  Kaari,  “like  a  lion,”  is  one  striking  disproof 
of  the  charge. 

4  Sopherim,  i.  7  ;  Gratz,  iii.  429  ;  Zunz,  Gottcscl.  Fort.  95. 

6  <pi\oTi/uL<5Tepov  Tr6Tnar€v/j.euos  irapa  ’lovSaiovs  -pp/xrjyevKera:  rrjy  ypa<pr\v, 
Orig.  Up.  ad  African.  Aquilae  secunda  editio  quain  Hebraei  /car’  & Kpifieiai* 
nonrinant,  Jer.  ad  Ezech.  c.  3.  If  the  current  of  the  times  had  not  run  too 
strongly  against  them,  Aqiba  and  other  Piabbis  would  have  refused  the  use  of 
any  translation. 


Other  Versions. 


119 


Theodotion  and  Symmachus.  Aqiba,  indeed,  tried  in  vain 
to  forbid  the  use  of  any  translation,  and  merely  acquiesced  in 
the  one  which  was  most  opposed  to  the  Christians.  His 
pupil,  Aquila,  was  so  slavishly  literal  that,  following  the 
exegesis  of  his  teacher,  he  even  rendered  the  case  sign  etli 
by  avv.1  His  version  was  vaunted  as  the  sole  accurate 
rendering  of  Holy  Writ.  All  three  translators  are  charged 
with  using  their  undoubted  knowledge  of  Hebrew  2  to  esta¬ 
blish  anti-Christian  interpretations.3  The  Rabbis,  however, 
finally  won  their  way  still  more  completely.  Since  the  days 
of  Justinian  the  Scriptures  have  been  exclusively  read  in 
Hebrew  in  their  public  worship,  and  the  only  version  permitted 
for  private  use  is  the  Chaldee  of  Onqelos. 

The  Seventy  had  not  realised  that  necessity  for  absolute 
faithfulness  which  we  now  regard  as  the  first  duty  of  every 
translator.  Excellent  as  their  version  is,  as  a  whole,  it  is  in 
many  details  faulty,  and  it  is  full  of  intentional  as  well  as  of 
unintentional  departures  from  the  meaning  of  the  original. 
The  Son  of  Sirach  had  observed  that  the  culture  of  the  Jews 
in  Alexandria  differed  in  no  small  degree  4  from  that  of  their 
Palestinian  brethren.  This  difference  showed  itself  in  many 
ways.  The  Seventy  do  not  scruple  to  prefer  the  current  view 
of  their  day  to  the  literal  and  natural  sense.5  They  show 
repeated  traces  of  the  influence  both  of  Jewish  casuistry 6 

1  E.g.  in  Gen.  i.  1.  Aquila  has  ’Ev  Ke(pa\a'icp  eniroei  6  6ebs  avv  rbv  ovpavbv 
kcu  avv  tt]v  yrjv.  Origen  naturally  speaks  of  him  as  SovXevcvv  rfj  'EfipaiKrj 
A e£ei  (Ad  African.  §  2).  So  in  India  the  Koran  was  regarded  as  too  good 
to  be  translated,  and  now  the  interlinear  versions  in  Persian  and  Urdoo  are 
too  literal  to  be  intelligible.  Muir,  The  Coran,  p.  48. 

2  'E&paiKTiv  Se  Slix\€ktov  a.KpLfiu>s  elaiv  ho’K'rjp.evoL,  Epiphan.  Ilaer.  xxix.  7. 

3  “  Qui  scripturam  nunc  audent  p-edeppupv^viLv,  perperam  interpretari.” 
Iren.  Ilaer.  iii.  24  ;  Epiphan.  Dc  Pond .  c.  13  ;  Euseb.  H.E.  V.  §1.  “Judaeus 
et  judaizantes  haeretici  qui  multa  mysteria  salvatoris  subdola  interpretation 
celarunt ;  ”  Jer.  Praef.  in  Job.  Aquila’s  translation,  as  a  counterpoise  to  the 
Septuagint,  was  so  highly  valued  that  E.  Eliezer  ben  Hyrkanos  applied  to 
him  Ps.  xlv.  2. 

4  eupov  ov  puKpas  7raiSelas  cupSjuoiov,  Prol. 

5  Cellarius,  Dc  Septuag.  Intcrpp.  §  20  ;  ap.  Havernick,  Einleit.  §  70. 

6  Jewish  casuistry  ;  the  Halakha,  Lev.  xix.  19,  rbv  a/nireXuiva  aov  ;  xxiv.  7, 
Frankincense  and  salt ;  Gen.  ix.  4,  icpeas  iv  aipLaai  \pvxvs  ;  xxxii.  32,  ov 
<paywai  ;  Deut.  xxvi.  12,  rb  Sevrepov  eirLbeKarov,  kc.  Herzfeld  disputes  many 
of  the  references  which  Prankel  regards  as  Halakhic  (Gesch.  d.  V.  Isr.  ii. 
542  fg.). 


120 


Divergences. 


and  Jewish  legend.1  They  feel  so  philosophical  a  re¬ 
pugnance  to  the  simple  anthropomorphism  of  the  sacred 
writers,  that  in  the  earlier  books — before  the  age  in  which 
such  expressions  no  longer  shocked  a  refined  culture  because 
they  were  explained  away  by  allegory — they  deliberately 
soften  or  alter  the  phrases  of  the  original.2  They  oc¬ 
casionally  suggest  a  parallel  between  Jewish  and  Pagan 
ordinances  with  a  spirit  of  tolerance  which  must  have  been 
highly  distasteful  to  the  stricter  Rabbis.  Thus,  when  they 
render  Urim  and  Thummim  by  “  Manifestation  and  Truth,” 
they  indicate  a  resemblance  between  the  “  Twelve  Gems ” 
of  Aaron’s  breast  and  the  sapphire  ornament  called  Thmei, 
or  “  Truth,”  which  was  worn  by  the  Egyptian  priests.3 
They  introduce  their  Angelology  where  it  has  no  sanction  in 
the  existing  text.4  They  call  the  Nethinim  by  the  title 
Hierodouloi.5  They  indulge  freely  in  Egyptian  technicalities.^ 
They  do  not  abstain  from  many  alterations — historical, 
aesthetic,  and  even  doctrinal — of  which  some  are  not  a  little 
arbitrary.  The  Talmud,  before  the  days  when  the  Septuagint. 
had  become  entirely  odious  to  the  Jews,  seems  in  one  passage 
to  admit  its  inspiration,  and  yet  at  the  same  time  confesses 

1  The  Haggada,  or  Jewish,  legendary  lore.  Deut.  xxxii.  8,  guardian  angels 
of  nations  ;  Josh.  xxiv.  30,  flint  circumcision-knives  buried  in  Joshua’s  grave  ; 
Ex.  xiii.  18,  “five  abreast ;  ”  Gen.  iv.  4,  Abel’s  sacrifice  kindled  by  fire  ;  Josh. 

xiii.  22,  Balaam  dashed  down  by  Ph in  eh  as  ;  1  Sam.  xx.  30,  Jonathan’s  mother 
one  of  the  maidens  seized  at  Shiloh  ;  Numbers  xxxii.  12,  Caleb  a  Gentile  by 
birth.  Many  Haggadoth  are  introduced  in  the  Book  of  Samuel. 

2  Ex.  xxiv.  10,  “  They  saw  the  place  where  God  stood.  .  .  Of  the  Elders  of 
Israel  not  even  one  perished  (diecpeoPTjaev),  and  they  were  seen  in  the  place  of  God,” 
a  singularly  daring  falsification.  See  Ex.  iv.  16,  24,  v.  3  ;  Num.  xii.  8  ; 

xiv.  14;  Job  xix.  26,  27  ;  xxxv.  14;  Ps.  xvii.  15;  Is.  xxxviii.  11.  For  a 
fuller  account  of  these  passages  see  Early  Days  of  Christianity,  i.  261,  fg. 
Similar  changes  are  found  in  the  Targums.  See  Geiger,  Urschrift,  318,  fg. 
Erankel,  Vorstudien,  passim.  Siegfried,  Philo.  18;  Maqom,  t6ttos,  “place,” 
was  a  sort  of  recognised  euphemism  for  God.  Referring  to  Ps.  xc.  1 ;  xxxiii.  27, 
Rabbi  Isaac  says  that  God  is  not  in  the  Universe  (Maqom),  but  the  Universe  is 
in  God.  Beresh.  Itabba,  §  68  :  A urbs  6  ©ebs  KaXeirai  tottos.  Philo,  De  Somn. 
i.  575  ;  Aboth,  ii.  17  ;  iii.  5,  6. 

3  A17A cvais  Kal  ’A\7ideia.  Aelian,  Ear.  Hist.  xiv.  34  :  Kal  iKaXeiro  t b  ayaXfxa 
’AA77  0eta.  Philo,  Vit.  Mos.  iii.  11  ;  Hengstenberg,  Egypt  and  the  Five  Books 
of  Moses,  c.  vi. 

4  Deut.  xxxii.  8  ;  xxxiii.  2. 

5  3  Esdr.  viii.  5,  &c. 

6  Such  as  apraSv,  Is.  v.  10  (Herod,  i.  192)  ;  iRis,  Lev.  xii.  17  ;  axoiros,  Jer. 
xviii.  15  ;  Orig.  ad  loc.  and  Herod,  ii.  6  ;  rcaaTocpopuov,  1  Chron.  ix.  26  ; 
ipoydopLcpa vrix,  Gen.  xii.  45.  See  Hody,  De  Bibl.  Text.  p.  114. 


Alterations. 


121 


that  this  inspiration  led  the  “  seventy-two  elders  ”  to  make 
thirteen  deliberate  changes.  The  passage  is  as  blundering  as 
usual,  and  perhaps  really  applies  to  the  version  of  Aquila  or 
ro  a  copy  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  in  Greek  letters,  for  the 
changes  alluded  to  do  not  exist  in  any  text  of  the  Septuagint.1 
Five,  however,  of  the  alterations  mentioned  are  akin  to , 
though  not  identical  with,  changes  which  the  Greek  trans¬ 
lators  actually  made.  Thus  they  seem  to  have  been  a  little 
shy  of  the  word  “  ass/’  They  make  Moses  put  his  wife  and 
children  “  upon  the  beasts  of  burden/’ 2  and  instead  of  “  I  have 
not  taken  one  ass  from  them/’  they  read  “  an  object  of  desire.” 3 
They  translated  “  hare  ”  by  “  shaggy-foot  ”  (facrvTrovf)  not  by 
Xayco?,  and  this  is  supposed  to  have  been  a  delicate  attention  to 
the  House  of  Lagos,  lest  they  should  find  the  name  of  their 
family  among  the  unclean  beasts.4  More  remarkable  was  the 
interpolation  of  the  word  “  not  ”  to  remove  the  apparent  mis¬ 
take  of  classing  the  hare  among  ruminants.5  In  Ex.  xii.  40, 
the  words  “  and  in  the  land  of  Canaan  ”  seem  to  have  been 
inserted  to  get  rid  of  a  chronological  difficulty.  It  is  a  far 
more  serious  matter  that  in  the  very  second  verse  of  Genesis 
the  translators  have  rendered  “  without  form  ”  by  “ unseen’’ 
and  have  thus  introduced  the  Platonic  conception  of  a 
distinction  between  the  material  ( alaOrjTos )  and  the  ideal 
world  (/cooyro?  vorjTof)  ; 0  and  that  in  Is.  ix.  6,  in  accord- 

1  Megilla,  f.  9,  i.  On  the  traces  of  Alexandrian  philosophy  in  the  Septuagint, 
see  Dahne,  ii.  1-72,  who,  however,  makes  the  case  appear  much  stronger  than 
it  really  is. 

2  Ex.  ix.  20  :  eVi  ra  in TO^vyia. 

3  Num.  xvi.  15  :  i7ridv/j.7]/jin.  In  this  passage  they  may  have  read  lEn  for 
Tift!"!.  But  we  find  the  same  tendency  in  Zech.  ix.  9,  where  they  use  ttwAos  ; 
this  euphemism  was  suggested  by  the  absurd  rumours  afloat  among  Gen¬ 
tiles  about  the  Jews  as  ass-worshippers  ;  as  well  as  by  the  desire  to  escape  the 
ridicule  of  nations  who  were  not  aware  that  the  ass  is  not  in  the  East  a 
despised  animal.  Jos.  C.  Apion.  ii.  10  ;  Tac.  Hist.  v.  3.  Comp.  Minuc.  Eel. 
Oct.  9  ;  Tort.  Apol.  16,  and  the  note  in  Life  of  Christ,  ii.  197.  So  Josephus 
substitutes  ktiivos  and  ‘imros  for  “ass.’’ 

4  Lev.  xi  6 ;  Deut.  xiv.  7.  Cobet  doubts  this,  and  points  out  that  Lagos 
means  not  “hare,”  but  “leader  of  the  people,”  and  that  Saainrovs  is  a  common 
name  for  the  hare.  There  must  be  some  strange  blunder  in  Megilla  (f.  9,  1), 
where  it  is  said  that  they  rendered  Arncvcth,  “hare,”  by  “short-footed,” 
because  A  rnc.vcth  was  the  name  of  Ptolemy’s  mother.  Arneveth  bears  no  re¬ 
semblance  to  Berenice,  and  she  was  Ptolemy’s  wife.  Aquila  uses  \ayus. 

5  See  Stanley,  Jew.  Ch.  iii.  261. 

6  a.6oaros  Kal  aKaraaKevaaTos.  See  Philo,  De  Opif.  Mund.  §  10.  Aquila 


122 


Mistakes. 


ance  with  the  Alexandrian  theosophy,  they  substitute  “  an 
Angel  of  mighty  counsel  ”  for  “  the  mighty  God.” 

The  version  of  the  Seventy  must  therefore  he  regarded 
not  only  as  a  translation,  but  as  a  corrected  edition  (fhopOcocns), 
almost  as  a  running  commentary,  which  freely  manipulates 
the  text  in  accordance  with  the  exegetical  traditions  of  the 
day.1  The  translators  never  scruple  to  introduce  their 
favourite  euphemisms,2  or  to  indulge  in  their  national  suscep¬ 
tibilities.3  They  cannot  be  regarded  as  faithful  or  accurate, 
still  less  as  inspired  interpreters.  Their  intentional  variations 
may  be  counted  by  scores,  and  their  unintentional  errors  by 
hundreds ;  and  alike  their  errors  and  their  variations  were 
in  a  multitude  of  instances  accepted  by  Christian  interpreters 
as  the  infallible  word  of  God. 

The  immense  effect  produced  by  this  translation  is  shown 
by  the  comments  of  Philo  and  of  the  Fathers  on  mistakes  of 
the  Seventy  which  they  accept  as  “  inspired,”  but  which  some¬ 
times  completely  misrepresent  the  meaning  of  the  original. 
A  few  instances  may  suffice  to  illustrate  this  fatal  magic  and 
sorcery  of  mere  words. 

In  Is.  lx.  17  the  Seventy  render  “  I  will  give  thy  rulers  in 
peace,  and  thine  overseers  in  righteousness.”  4  St.  Clement  of 
Rome,  quoting  from  memory,  gives  the  words  ’E7 TLcrtcoTrovs 
and  A la/covovs  in  this  passage,  and  applies  it  as  an  ancient 
prophecy  about  the  appointment  of  Bishops  and  Deacons.5 
Irenaeus  also  makes  it  a  prophecy  concerning  Presbyters.6 

rendered  it  Ktvca/xa  teal  ovOev  ;  Symmachus,  apybv  Kal  abiaKpirov  ;  Tkeodotion, 
Keubv  Kcd  ovdev. 

1  Jerome,  among  other  disparaging  remarks,  says,  “Septuaginta  quod 
nesciebant  dubiis  protulere  sententiis,”  and  “  conjicio  noluisse  tunc  temporis 
Septuaginta  interpretes  fidei  suae  sacramenta  Ethnicis  prodere  ”  (in  Rufinum , 
ii.).  In  Ep.  134,  after  a  careful  examination  of  the  Psalter  in  the  Septuagint 
he  says,  “  Longum  est  re  solvere  quanta  Septuaginta  de  suo  addiderint,  quanta 
dimiserunt  quae  in  exemplaribus  ecclesiae  obelis  asteriscisque  distincta  sint.” 

2  Nah.  Lii.  5,  ra  ottlctco  cr ov.  Is.  iii.  17,  rb  axvp-a  avrwv.  Job  xxxi.  10, 

Ta-ireivcoOelT],  &c.  1  Sam.  xxiv.  3,  TrapaaKevacracrdcu.  1  Sam.  xvi.  23  ;  xix.  9, 

omission  of  Elohim  and  Jehovah. 

3  Ex.  ii.  1,  rwv  dvyarepccv  A evt  (comp.  Lev.  xviii.  2)  ;  iv.  6,  oxrel  xi(*>v 
(“leprous”  omitted)  ;  vi.  12,  &\oyos  (of  uncircumcised  lips)  ;  vi.  15,  6  4k  rrjs 
4> oLviacrris ,  vi.  30  ;  laxv0(Pu,v°s  ;  1  Sam.  xv.  12,  67recrTpei//e  rb  apjua  ;  1  Sam.  i. 
14,  naLbapLov.  They  omit  Ex.  xxxii.  9. 

4  LXX,  5 cvcrco  robs  6.pxovras  crov  4v  elp^ur)  kcu  tovs  4iu(Tk6tcovs  aov  4v  biKaioavvri. 

6  Clem.  Rom.  Ep.  ad  Cor.  §  42.  6  Iren.  Eaer.  iv.  44. ' 


123 


Followed  by  the  Fathers. 

Jerome  does  indeed  alter  the  translation,1  but  in  his  usual 
timid  and  vacillating  way  talks  of  the  admirable  majesty  of 
Holy  Scripture  in  giving  the  name  of  “  Bishops”  to  the 
future  rulers  of  the  Church  ! 2 

In  Jer.  xi.  19,  “  Let  us  destroy  the  tree  with  the  fruit 
thereof,”  the  Seventy  curiously  read,  “  Let  us  cast  the  wood  into 
his  bread.”  3  This  was  interpreted  by  the  Fathers  to  mean, 
“  Fet  us  cast  the  Cross  into  the  body  of  Christ,”  and  Jerome 
says  that  this  application  is  given  by  the  consent  of  all  the 
Church.  Justin  Martyr,4  Tertullian,5  Cyprian,6  Lactantius,7 
even  Origen 8  and  Tlieodoret 9  all  follow  this  impossible 
rendering  and  fanciful  misapplication. 

Again,  in  Jer.  xvii.  9,  “  The  heart  is  .  .  .  desperately  wicked ; 
who  can  know  it,”  the  Seventy  for  “  anush,”  inscrutable,”  read 
enosh,  “  man  ” — Homo  est,  quis  cognosed  ipsum  ? 10  It  was 
nothing  more  than  a  mistake,  yet  the  Fathers  inferred  from 
it  the  unknowable  divine  nature  of  Christ,  and  that  He  was 
both  God  and  man.11 12  In  this  instance,  also,  the  better  know¬ 
ledge  of  Jerome  pointed  out  that  the  argument  was  “  bono 
quidem  voto  sed  non  secundum  scientiam 

A  favourite  quotation  of  the  Fathers  was  “He  reigned  from 
the  wood  ”  which  they  applied  to  Christ.  The  words  “  from, 
the  wood  ”  are  an  addition  found  in  some  MSS.  of  the  Seventy 
in  Ps.  xevi.  10;  and  from  the  old  Latin  version  the  reading 
found  its  way  into  the  pages  of  Tertullian. 

In  Hab.  ii.  11,  the  Seventy  render  the  word  “  beam  ”  by  the 
curious  word  ndvOapo^F  Some  critics  have  altered  the  reading 
into  /cdvOov,  rcava(3ov,  fcavOgptov,  &c.,  but  probably  it  merely 

1  Vulg.,  Ponam  visitationem  tuam  pacem,  ct  praepositos  tuos  justitiam. 

2  Jer.  ad  loc. 

3  Septuag. ,  efi/3dAo)fj.€v  Tbv  aprov.  y.l.  rpaxvteor.  Vulg.,  Mittamus 

lignum  in  panem  ejus. 

4  Dial.  p.  298.  5  C.  Jud.  10  ;  C.  Mare.  iii.  19. 

G  Test.  adv.  Jud.  ii.  15.  7  Instt.  iv.  19. 

8  Horn.  x.  in  Jer. 

9  Tlieodoret,  ad  loc. 

10  Jer.  xvii.  9,  (Sadda  rj  napbla  iraph  tv  aura  real  &u9pcoTv6s  ian  (Vulg.  inscrutabile ) 

real  r Is  yrcvaeTaL  avTov  ; 

11  Iren.  Ilacr .  iii.  20  ;  iv.  66.  Tert.  C.  Ju,d.  10.  Cyprian  Test.  ii.  10. 

Lactant.  Instt.  iv.  13.  Aug.  C.  Faustum ,  xiii.  8. 

12  Hab.  ii.  11,  nal  navdapos  4k  £uAoi/  (pdey^rai  avra. 


124 


Folloived  by  the  Fathers. 

means  a  knot  in  the  wood.1  Some  Latin  versions  rendered 
it  “  scarabaeus”  beetle,  and  this  led  to  some  singular  com¬ 
ments.  Thus  St.  Ambrose  {Be  Obitu  Theodosii )  speaks  of 
“  Him  who,  like  a  beetle,  called  to  his  persecutors,”  and  says 
“  He  was  the  good  beetle  who  called  from  the  wood.” 2 

Again,  in  Hab.  iii.  2,  the  Seventy  had  “  And  thou  shalt  he 
recognised  in  the  midst  of  two  animals,  for  “  Thou  shalt 
revive  thy  work  in  the  midst  of  the  years.  This  error  led 
to  the  most  untenable  inferences.3  In  the  two  f&xx  Origen 
sees  the  Son  and  the  Spirit ;  Tertullian  sees  Moses  and  Elias  ; 
other  interpretations  were  Angels  and  men,  Cherubim  and 
Seraphim,  Jews  and  Babylonians,  the  Two  Thieves,  the  Two 
Testaments.  Augustine  imagines  an  allusion  to  the  ox  and 
the  ass  in  the  manger,  and  his  view  has  exercised  a  deep 
influence  over  the  pictures  of  the  Nativity  in  Christian  Art. 
The  exegesis  of  the  passage  furnishes  a  good  specimen  of 
fancy,  working  without  restraint  and  without  any  guiding 
principle  on  the  material  of  pure  mistake.4 

The  misinterpretation  of  a  Greek  word  in  Ps.  xcii.  12, 
“  The  righteous  shall  flourish  as  a  palm-tree,”  led  the  Fathers 
into  an  unfortunate  argument.  They  mistook  the  word 
c polvi f,  “  a  palm-tree,”  to  mean  a  Phoenix,  and  accepting  all 
the  ancient  fables  about  the  Indian  bird,  they  quote  the 
verse  as  a  proof  of  the  Resurrection  and  the  Yir gin-birth 
of  Christ.5 

From  Nah.  i.  9,  which  the  Seventy  render  “  Thou  wilt  not 
punish  twice  for  it,”6  the  Fathers,  and  even  St.  Jerome,  con¬ 
fidently  maintain  that  the  people  of  the  cities  of  the  plain, 
and  those  drowned  in  the  Deluge,  will  he  saved  hereafter ; 
and  the  Apostolical  Canons  laid  down  the  rule  that  when  a 
priest  had  been  punished  for  a  grave  crime  (even,  says  the 

1  Vulg.,  Lignum  quod  inter  junctivas  acdificiorum  est  (tie-beam). 

2  On  Luke  xxiii.  We  find  elsewhere  “ bonus  scarabaeus  ”  applied  to  our 
Lord. 

3  Irenaeus  ( Hacr .  iii.  10).  Eusebius  ( Dcm .  Ev.  vi.  15)  and  Theodoret 
read  (wwv  for  CaW,  and  interpreted  it  “two  lives.” 

4  Tert.  G.  Marc.  iv.  22,  &c.  See  Whitby,  De  S.  Script.  Interpret,  p.  137. 

s  Seethe  passages  quoted  by  Whitby,  l.c.  p.  85. 

6  Nah.  i.  9,  ouk  eKdiK^aeLs  5 Is  els  avro.  Cod.  Al.  ovk  £k5ik7]<T6l  b)s  enl  rb 
avr6.  Vulg.,  Non  consurget  duplex  tribulatio. 


Supposed  Inspiration. 


125 


Canon  of  [?]  Basil,  for  a  crime  unto  death),  he  was  to  be  de¬ 
posed  but  not  excommunicated,  “  non  enim  vindicabis  bis  in 
id  ipsum.”  Why  the  benefit  of  the  verse  was  only  extended 
to  priests  does  not  appear. 

St.  Augustine,  as  is  well  known,  being  ignorant  of  Hebrew, 
and  finding  in  the  Septuagint  his  nearest  approach  to  the 
original,  had  .  an  exaggerated  opinion  of  the  sacredness  of  the 
Greek  version.1  He  seems  to  have  doubted  whether  even 
the  errors  were  not  of  divine  origin,  and  when  in  Jon.  iii.  4 
the  Seventy  read  “  Yet  three  days  and  Nineveh  shall  bo  de¬ 
stroyed/'2  he  argues  as  if  the  “three”  were  prophetically 
significant  of  the  time  between  the  Death  and  the  Resur¬ 
rection  of  our  Lord.3 

We  are  surprised  to  find  similar  notions  prevalent  even  in 
the  school  of  Antioch.  Yet  no  less  a  commentator  than 
Theodore  of  Mopsuetia  relies  almost  exclusively  upon  the 
Septuagint,  and  not  only  does  not  consult  the  Hebrew,  but 
even  fails  to  make  use  of  the  Syriac  version,  which  would 
have  often  thrown  light  upon  the  difficulties  of  the  Greek. 
It  is  astonishing  that  he  should  accept  the  unhappy  rendering 
“  Amalthaea’s  horn”  as  an  equivalent  of  Qeren  Happuk, 4 
and  argue  from  the  allusion  to  Greek  mythology  that  the 
Book  of  J ob  was  written  by  a  heathen  ! 

But  while  the  Septuagint  exercised  so  strong  an  influence, 
and  repeatedly  betrays  its  Alexandrian  origin,5  it  does  not 

\  Dc  Doctr.  Christ,  ii.  15  ;  Ep.  28,  c.  2  ;  Qu.  in  Cen.  169  ;  De  Civ.  Dei, 
xviii.  42.  Epiphanius  regarded  the  Seventy  translators  as  prophets  De  mens, 
ct  pond. '  Justinian  oidered  the  Jews  to  use  the  Septuagint  TrpcxpTiTiKTjs 
wa-rrep  x^piros  irepi\apA/a(Tir)s  avrovs  (Novel.  Diatax.  146). 

2  7  V  V  *  ~  c  /  _  ' 

-L/AA.  6T l  rpzis  t ifiepai,  k.t.X. 

3  £)e  Cons.  Ev.  ii.  66  ;  De  Doctr.  Christ,  iv.  15.  See  Trench,  Sermon  on 
the  Mount,  p.  18. 

4  “Horn  of  Stibium.”  Job  xlii.  14.  LXX.,  ’ AuaAddas  nepas,  Vulg., 

Cornu  Stibii.  K 

6  The  following  instances  are  adduced  by  Franck,  Frankel,  Dahne,  &c.  : 
Gen.  i.  2,  p  Se  yrj  a  0 par  os  :  Gen.  ii.  4,  5,  eV onjire  .  .  .  vav  x^wpbr  aypov  tt  p  b 
tov  yeveffdai  4tti  rrjs  yrjs  :  Is.  xl.  26,  ris  icared e i£e  ravra  :  Is.  xlv.  18,  b  Karadel^as 
T7?v  yrjv.  These  are  supposed  to  bear  on  the  Platonic  idealism  and  the  creation 
of  an  ideal  before  the  real  world.  Is.  xl.  26,  incpepwv  tear  apid/j.bv  rbu  K6(rp.ov 
avrov  (Pythagorean  notion  of  numbers)  ;  Is.  xlii.  13,  <5  Oebs  ruv  Swa/ueav 
(the  logoi  or  intermediate  potencies  of  Philo)  ;  Ps.  cx.  3,  npb  *E co<r<p6pov 
iyewriaa  <re  (a  Pre-existent  Logos)  ;  Is.  ix.  5,  p.eyd\r]s  &ovA7)s  fyy eAos  (the 
Logos),  &c.  Their  views  are  combated  by  Herzfeld,  Gescli.  des  Volkes  Israel , 
ii.  411-414. 


126 


The  Booh  of  Wisdom. 


sliow  any  symptoms  of  that  which  was  the  special  tendency 
of  Alexandrian  exegesis,  namely,  the  method  of  allegory.  Its 
references  to  ritual  and  to  legend,  and  its  avoidance  ol  antluo- 
pomorphism,  are  Palestinian  no  less  than  Hellenistic,1  and  too 
great  stress  has  been  laid  on  the  supposed  traces  of  concep¬ 
tions  derived  from  Greek  philosophy.  Greek  influences  pro¬ 
duced  far  more  decisive  effects  on  the  Book  of  Wisdom.  In 
that  book,  side  by  side  with  traditions  of  the  utmost  extra¬ 
vagance,  we  have  a  direct  incorporation  of  views  bonowed 
from  Plato  and  the  Stoics.  The  unknown  author  who  took 
the  name  of  Solomon  derives  from  Plato  his  doctrine  of 
ideas,  from  the  Stoics  their  systems  of  ethics.  From  Plato 
he  had  learnt  the  Immortality  and  prae-existence  of  souls  ; 2 
the  coeval  existence  of  formless  matter ; 3  and  the  view  that 
the  body  is  the  seat  of  all  sin.4  From  the  Stoics  he  had 
learnt  about  the  Four  Cardinal  Virtues  and  the  Intelligential 
Spirit  which  pervades  the  world.5  The  most  remarkable 
instance  of  allegory  in  this  book  is  the  allusion  to  the  High 
Priest’s  robes  as  an  image  of  the  whole  world.6 

In  the  semi-ethnic  Jewish  writings  of  this  epoch  wTe  have 
another  indication  of  the  widespread  desire  on  the  part  of 
cultivated  Jews  to  share  in  the  glories  of  Greek  literature. 
The  poet  Ezekiel,  who  dramatised  the  Exodus,  the  elder 
Philo,  who  wrote  an  epic  on  Jerusalem,  Theodotus,  who  re¬ 
lated  in  verse  the  story  of  Dinah  and  Shechem,  were  all 
engaged  in  the  then  impossible  attempt  “  to  unite  the  pallium 
of  Japheth  with  the  tallith  of  Shem.’ 

Jason  of  Cyrene  wrote  in  five  books  the  story  of  the  Syrian 
war,  which  is  utilised  in  the  Third  and  Fourth  Books  of  the 
Maccabees.  Apocryphal  stories  like  “  Bel  and  the  Dragon  ” 
and  the  “Story  of  Susanna,”  as  well  as  the  legendary  ad¬ 
ditions  to  Ezra,  Esther,  and  other  canonical  books,  show 

1  Dr.  Deutsch  has  furnished  many  decisive  proofs  of  this  (Lit.  Remains, 
pp.  348-356).  Josephus  was  largely  influenced  by  Philo,  and  occasionally 
refers  to  allegoric  explanations.  Antt.  iii.  7.  §  7.  &c.  See  Diet,  of  Christian 
Biogr.  ii.  452-458. 

2  Wisd.  viii.  19. 

4  Id.  i.  4  ;  viii.  20. 

6  Id.  xviii.  24. 


3  Id.  xi.  17. 

5  Id.  vii.  22-24. 


Jeivish- Greek  Writers. 


127 

that  the  Jews  had  felt  the  charm  of  Greek  romance,  and 
desired  that  something  which  resembled  it  should  exist  among 
themselves.  But  this  whole  style  of  literature  was  thoroughly 
exotic.  It  has  for  the  most  part  perished  like  a  flower  which 
has  no  roots.  The  pseudepigraphy  which  was  the  favourite 
literary  form  of  these  productions,  and  which  led  the  writers 
to  borrow,  on  the  one  hand  the  names  of  Enoch,  Solomon, 
Jeremiah,  and  Baruch,  and  on  the  other  to  secure  attention 
for  their  thoughts  under  the  name  of  Sibylline  oracles  or  of 
fragments  from  Orpheus  and  Linus,  Homer  and  Hesiod, 
Heraclitus  and  Xenophanes,  indicated  the  artificial  character 
of  the  age.  One  Jewish  poet  succeeded  in  palming  off  his 
versification  of  the  Old  Testament  morality  under  the  name 
of  the  Ionian  poet  Phocylides.  A  literature  which  breathes 
the  very  atmosphere  of  forgery  and  fiction  is  essentially  a  dead 
literature.  These  Hellenists  moved  in  an  unwholesome  at¬ 
mosphere  of  exaggeration,  unreality,  and  pious  frauds,  and 
they  naturally  wrote  “  Musis  et  Apolline  nullo”  They  were 
trying  to  put  old  wine  into  fresh  wine-skins,  and  to  trans¬ 
pose  into  Hellenic  forms  the  wholly  alien  elements  of  Semitic 
history.  Josephus  constantly  shows  the  same  desire.  In  his 
suppressions  and  alterations  he  tries  to  throw  the  history 
of  the  sacred  books  into  a  form  which  would  most  attract 
the  attention  and  least  shock  the  prejudices  of  his  Greek 
and  Roman  readers.  Doubtless  Artapanus,  Eupolemos,  and 
other  Hellenistic  historians  were  actuated  by  similar  motives. 
Many  Greek  and  Egyptian  writers,  the  priest  Manetho,  the 
historians  Agatharcidcs,  Chaeremon,  and  Lysimachus,  the 
philosophers  Apollonius  Molo  and  Posidonius  of  Apamea  at 
different  times  attacked  Judaism  and  its  institutions,  and 
the  Jews  wished  to  defend  themselves  by  every  literary 
method  in  their  power. 

III.  But  the  most  essential  contribution  of  Alexandrian 
Judaism  to  the  history  of  exegesis  is  the  allegorical  method. 
The  first  use  of  that  method  is  seen  in  the  fragments  of 
Aristobulus  and  the  letter  of  Aristeas.  It  culminated  in 
Philo,  and  through  Philo — mainly  on  the  strength  of  a  passing 


128 


The  Allegoric  Method. 


instance  in  which  it  was  used  as  an  illustration  by  St.  Paul 
it  was  transmitted  to  at  least  fifteen  centuries  of  Christian 

exe^etes.1 

i°  Of  the  letter  of  the  Pseudo-Aristeas,  we  need  say 
but  little.  Though  accepted  by  Josephus  and  Philo,2  it 
is  an  acknowledged  forgery,  teeming  with  deliberate  fictions 
and  propped  up  with  spurious  documents.  It  had  no 
other  object  than  the  glorification  of  the  Septuagint.2  It 
shows  the  allegorising  tendency  in  its  reference  to  ablu¬ 
tions  and  to  the  distinctions  of  clean  and  unclean  animals, 
but  is  probably  of  much  later  date  than  the  writings  of 

Aristobulus.4 

ii.  Aristobulus  was  an  Alexandrian  J ew  and  a  P eripatetic 
philosopher  (b.c.  160)  who,  in  2  Macc.  i.  10,  is  called  the 
master,”  i.e.  the  tutor  of  Ptolemy  Euergetes.  He  is  the 
reputed  author  of  commentaries  on  the  books  ol  Moses 
which  were  addressed  to  Ptolemy  Philometor,  and  of  which 
fragments  are  preserved  by  Eusebius.5  The  genuineness  of 
these  works  was  impugned  by  Hody  and  defended  P>y 
Yalcknaer.  Recently  it  has  been  impugned  by  Kuenen 
though  defended  by  Gfrorer.6  In  the  sphere  of  Alexandrian 


1  See  Muller,  Fragmenta  Hist.  Gr.  iii.  207-230;  Euseb.  Praep.  Evang.  ix. 

17-39  :  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  i.  c.  15  §  72  ;  Jos.  Antt.  i.  15  ;  C.Ap.i.  23  ;  Gratz, 
Gesch.  d.  Juden,  iii.  483  ;  Delitzsch,  Gesch.  d.  Jud.Poesie,  211  ;  Herzfeld, 
iii.  517  ;  Philippson,  Ezechiel  und  Philo.  1836.  The  Palestinian  Jews  looked 
very  unfavourably  on  all  authorship.  Jost,  Judenth .  i.  367,  373.  4  - 

2  Jos.  Antt.  xii.  2 ;  Philo  Vit.  Mas.  ii.  §  6,  Fabric.  Bill.  Grace  in.  660 
Jost,  Judenth.  i.  372.  Hody  demonstrated  the  spuriousness  of  the  letter.  It 

is  printed  in  Gallandi,  Bibl.  Pair.  ii.  771. 

a  The  real  Aristeas  ivas  an  officer  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus. 

4  The  Hiob.  Priest  Eleazar  is  made  to  say  that  the  ritual  ot  Levitism  is 

symbolic  ofhigher  truths;  that  the  eating  of  birds  of  prey  is  forbidden  to 
teach  the  wickedness  of  violence  and  injustice  ;  that  animals  which  chew  the 
cud  and  divide  the  hoof  are  allowed  for  food  to  remind  us  of  the  duty  oi 
thinking  of  God,  and  of  the  difference  between  right  and  wrong.  These  are 
stated  as  additional  reasons  to  the  political  and  sanitary  ones,  and  they  are 
followed  by  a  special  allegorical  explanation  of  the  prohibition  to  eat  the 
weasel  and  the  mouse.  Such  commands  were  not  merely  given  piohibitive  } 
(a.TrayopevTiKws)\)Xlt  didactically  (ivtieiKTLKws).  ..  ...  . 

5  See  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  i.  Euseb.  Praep.  Ev.  vn.  13,  vm.  9,  ix.  6, 

Xi6  Kuenen  thinks  that  the  real  Aristobulus  could  never  have  ventured 
to  forge  so  many  interpolations  into  the  classical  poems.  On  Aristobulus 
see  Yalcknaer,  Diatribe  de  Aristobulo  Judaeo,  1806  ;  Gfrorer,  Philo,  n. 
71-120. 


Aristobulus. 


129 


literature  we  can  rarely  feel  any  certainty  about  such 
questions.  We  are  walking  over 


“  Ignes 

Suppositos  cineri  doloso.  ” 


Whether,  however,  we  accept  the  fragments  of  Aristobulus 
as  genuine  or  not,  his  actual  work  was  of  very  great  impor¬ 
tance  for  the  History  of  Interpretation.1  He  is°  one  of  the 
precursors  whom  Philo  used  though  he  did  not  name,2  and  he 
is  the  first  to  enunciate  two  theses  which  were  destined  to  find 

wide  acceptance,,  and  to  lead  to  many  false  conclusions  in  the 
sphere  of  exegesis. 

.  Tlle  first  of  tliese  1S  tlle  statement  that  Greek  philosophy 
is  borrowed  from  the  Old  Testament,  and  especially  from 
the  Law  of  Moses  • 3  the  other  that  all  the  tenets  of  the 
Greek  .  philosophers,  and  especially  of  Aristotle,  are  to  be 

found  m  Moses  and  the  Prophets  by  those  who  use  the  riMit 
method  of  inquiry.4 

i.  The  first  statement  need  not  detain  us  long.  Aristobulus 
asserts  that  before  the  days  of  Alexander  parts  of  the  Law  had 
been  translated  into  Greek,  and  that  Plato,  and  even  Pytha¬ 
goras,  to  whom  he  afterwards  adds  Socrates,  had  largely 
borrowed  from  them.*  Similarly  we  find  an  attempt  else- 


1  Eusebius  (IT.  E.  vii.  32)  says  that  he  wrote  Bi&\ovs  i^vyvriK^s  rov 

vi"i  9  0  xiii  preSerVed.  in  Euseb-  fraep.  El .vii.  13,  14  ; 

(i.  §25;  v.’§  20;  vi.§  37)1,Ch  S°me  glVCn  bj  Clement  ™  kis  Stromatcis 

J5EJ)e  fosePh-  it  63  ;  Dc  Spec.  Legg.  ii.  §  2  (Mangey  ii. 

•  >-9)  ,  Leg.  Allcgg.  i.  5d,  and  Dc  Decal.  4.  My  references  to  Philo  wilA  nAL 

JiTT  m  ’  y  t0  i^i  sections,  which  are  numbered  in  all  editions.  J  have  chiefly 
used  Mangey  and  the  Leipzig  editions.  -1 

J  See  Justin  Mart.  Apol.  i.  59;  Cohort.  26,  30-33  ;  Euseb.  Praep.  Ev  vii  14  ■ 

s  r  ■  -2-  8 15“- ,  ’ap^ooa0!  «...  ypAH,  Lv  'oZeD 

5  i  IlAarwy  r„  .  .  .  «a#is  Ka,  n vtlayjpas  ttoAAo.  ri,y  W 

17D  *?  y,”  Uvroi  Comp.  Strom,  v.  c.  14.  S  98  ■ 

1)  aline,  Dc  (element.  Alex.  yvuHTfi.  Helps.  1831 

*  See  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  v.  20. 

nifl7;bllrVn  hl®,<J?arth1.of  the  J:istoric  sense>  borrows  this  thesis,  and  thinks 
hat  t  ocrates  and  Heraclitus  and  Zeno  either  did  borrow  from  Moses  or  mhdit 

haie  done  so.  The  same  opinions  lasted  till  the  Middle  A«e s  ’Reuchlin 
maintains  the  thesis  m  the  second  book  of  his  Dc  Verbo  Mirijko  (comp,  id  i. 
f  i  *  *  ’  asseitmg  that  1  lato  s  Absolute  Being  (t b  ovr us  bv)  is  borrowed 

matoii  1  See  ^Philo  &o”  “*  ^  Tfakt>'sof  Python*  from  ?l/e  Tetm^m- 
niatoii.  bee  Ihilo,  Quis  rer.  div.  Jcaer.  43;  Quod  omn.  prob.  liber.  16;  De 


130  The  Allegorising  Method. 

where  to  identify  Gideon  (Jerubbaal)  with  the  priest 
Hierombalos  who'  furnished  information  to  Sanchomatlio 
the  Berytian;1  and  the  Prophet  Ezekiel  with  Nazaratus 
the  Assyrian  who  is  spoken  of  as  one  of  the  teachers  o 

Pythagoras.  .  , 

Such  statements  are  destitute  of  every  particle  of  histonca 

foundation.  They  become  doubly  suspicious  in  the  pages 

of  one  whose  national  vanity  has  led  him  to  the  forgery  of 

impossible  passages  of  Orpheus,  Linus,  Musaeus,  and  even  of 

Aratus,  as  well  as  to  the  falsification  of  Homer  passages 

in  which  he  makes  the  mythical  Greek  poets .  speak 

familiarly  of  the  history  of  Abraham  and  the  legislation 

of  Moses.  Hellenistic  philosophy,  like  Palestinian  Rabbinism, 

attached  boundless  importance  to  precedent  and  authority  , 

and  if  such  authority  had  no  existence  it  was  unscrupulously 

invented.2 

ii  As  to  the  second  point— the  possibility  of  extorting 
Greek  philosophy  out  of  the  Pentateuch— it  is  maintained 
partly  by  the  modification  of  anthropomorphic  expressions, 
partly  by  reading  new  conceptions  between  the  lines  of  the 
ancient  documents.  In  answer  to  a  question  of  Ptolemy, 
Aristobulus  told  him  that  Scripture  was  not  to  be  literally 
understood.3  The  “hand”  of  God  means  His  might;  the 
“  speech  ”  of  God  implies  only  an  influence  on  the  soul  of 
man.4  The  “  standing  ”  of  God  means  the  organisation  and 
immovable  stability  of  the  world.  The  "  coming  down  ”  of 
God  has  nothing  to  do  with  time  or  space.  The  file  and 
the  “  trumpet  ”  of  Sinai  are  pure  metaphors  corresponding  to 


provid.  i.  77,  79  ;  ii.  42,  48  ;  Vit.  Mos.  i.  1 
CJaacstiones  (Aucher,  ii.  83,  178,  359,  3/3,  5 


;  ii.  4  ;  De  poster.  Caini,  39  ; 
03)  ;  Jos.  C.~Ap.  ii.  6  ;  Franck, 


Die  Kabbala,  v p.8,9.  ^  * 

1  See  EuseL,  Pracp.  Ev.  i.  10  ;  Boehart,  Phaleg.  p.  7/6;  Ewald,  Gcsch. 

1 1  4  4  i’ 

'2  in  quoting  Homer,  Od.  v.  262,  Aristobulus  substituted  €05 ojlov  tor 

TSToarov.  Gratiger  says  outright  “Judaeorum  est  mentiri,  Ad  Ghronol. 
Euseb.  p.  405.  On  this  subject  of  forgery  see  R.  Simon,  Hist.  cnt.  au  V.  J .  11. 
1 87  ;  Dahne,  i.  82  ;  ii.  214-236.  But  we  must  not  judge  ancient  pseudepigraphy 
bv  the  moral  standard  of  the  nineteenth  century. 


3  Euseb.  Prae.p.  Ev.  viii.  10.  ,  ,  ,  x 

4  So  too  Philo.  God  does  not  speak — friraye,  ppr  eis  vow  -kot  e\Vr)  tcv 

rjufrepov.  Decal.  §  9. 


Its  Causes. 


131 


nothing  external.  The  six  days’  creation  merely  implies 
continuous  development.  The  seventh  day  indicates  the  cycle 
of  hebdomads  which  prevails  among  all  living  things— what- 
evei  that  piece  of  Pythagorean  mysticism  may  chance  to  mean. 
Aristobulus,  however,  confined  allegory  within  reasonable 
limits,  and,  as  Dean  Stanley  has  said,  if  he  be  held  responsible 
for  the  extravagances  of  Philo,  of  Origen,  or  of  the  Schoolmen, 
he  may  also  claim  the  glory  of  having  led  the  way  in  the 
path  trodden  by  all  who  have  striven  to  discriminate  between 
the  eternal  truths  of  Scripture  and  the  framework,  the 
imaginative  vesture,  in  which  those  truths  are  set  forth.1 

IV.  Heie  then  we  trace  to  its  source  one  of  the  tiny  rills 
of  exegesis,  which  afterwards  swelled  the  mighty  stream  of 
I  hilonian  and  Christian  allegory.  Before  we  notice  the  writings 
of  Philo  himself,  it  becomes  a  question  of  deep  interest  how  this 
method  arose.  To  what  necessity  did  it  owe  its  origin  ?  Was 

it  indigenous  among  the  J ews  of  Alexandria,  or  did  they  derive 
it  from  other  sources  ? 


The  study  of  history,  of  literature,  and  of  comparative 
religion  enables  us  to  give  to  the  first  question  a  clear  and 
decisive  answer.  Allegory  arose  from  the  deeply-felt  necessity 
lor  finding  some  borderland  for  the  harmonious  junction  of 
Greek  philosophy  with  Jewish  legislation.  While  the  Rabbinic 
casuists  were  spinning  cobwebs  of  ceremonial  inferences  out 
of  the  letter  of  the  Law,  allegory  was  used  by  the  Hellenists 
for  the  totally  different  object  of  developing  out  of  Moses  the 
attenuated  semblance  of  an  alien  philosophy.  To  the  Rabbis 
the  Pentateuch  was  the  germ  of  all  ritualism,  to  the  Hellenists 
it  was  the  veil  of  all  gnosis.2  Ezra  and  the  Pharisees  were 
the  masters  of  the  Rabbis;  Plato  and  the  philosophers  of  the 
Alexandrians.  The  Hellenists,  however,  were  so  far  superior 
to  the  Rabbis  that  they  set  the  spirit  above  the  letter,  and 
valued  morality  more  than  formalism.  But  both  schools 
went  widely  astray.  They  lived  in  ages  to  which  pure 
Mosaism,  alike  in  its  conceptions  and  its  practices,  had 
become  impossible.  The  Scripture  lessons— the  Parashah 
1  Jewish  Church,  iii.  282.  2  The  LXX.  use  to  render  n}PT. 


A  lexandrianism. 


from  the  Law,  the  Haphtara  from  the  Prophets— were  read 
alike  in  the  synagogues  of  Jerusalem  and  of  Alexandria,  but 
in  both  cities  the  exegesis  was  nothing  but  a  travesty  of 
the  ancient  documents— in  Jerusalem  a  series  of  untenable 

inferences,  in  Alexandria  an  aiiy  dieam. 

It  was  impossible  for  a  cultivated  Alexandrian,  familiar 
with  all  the  literary  treasures  of  Greek  thought,  to  live 
like  a  Palestinian  Rabbi  “  within  the  four  corners  of  the 
Halakha,”  or  to  think  that  life  could  be  profitably  spent 
in  j anglings  over  the  microscopic  details  of  an  abrogated 
Levitism.  We  are  not  surprised  to  learn  that  the  Rabbis 
of  Jerusalem  branded  a  man  as  “  a  genuine  Alexandrian  1  ll 
he  showed  any  of  the  independence  which  sprang  from  his 
superior  education.  A  thoughtful  Hellenist  might  indeed, 
like  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Wisdom,  find  some  outlet  for 
the  play  of  fancy  in  the  fairyland  of  the  Haggada ;  but  the 
Hagcada  was  only  applicable  to  questions  of  history  and  to 
illustrations  of  practical  morals.  It  offered  no  answer  to  his 
deepest  speculations. 

Mingling  daily  with  subtle  thinkers  of  all  schools  from 
Egyptian  priests  to  Greek  atheists — talking  one  day  on  the 
mole  or  in  the  marketplace  to  some  Eastern  theosopliist  from 
the  centre  of  Asia,  and  on  the  next  to  some  bright  Greek 
fresh  from  the  Lyceum  or  the  Academe,  and  trained  in  the 
encyclopaedic  superficiality  of  that  epoch  2  no  gifted  Je^ 
could  remain  spell-bound  in  the  narrow  self-assertion  of  his 
race.  He  might  still  retain  his  conviction  that  his  own 
people  had  been  exceptionally  endowed  with  religious  insight, 
but  he  could  not  remain  ignorant  of  “  the  glory  that  was  Greece, 
and  the  grandeur  that  was  Borne.”  He  could  not  fail  to 
see  that  God  had  other  sheep  who  were  not  of  the  fold  of 
Israel,  and  that  if  He  had  given  His  law  to  the  children  ot 
Shem,  He  had  also  endowed  with  infinite  gifts  of  grace  and 
culture,  of  art  and  science,  of  rule  and  dignity,  the  sons 


1  Kin  Rappoport,  Freeh  Millin.  p.  102,  quoted  by 


Siegfried,  Philo,  6. 

2  Philo,  De  Cherub.  30 ; 
i.  35. 


De  Agric.  3,  4  ;  De  Congress.  34  ;  l)e  Somn. 


A  lexandrianism.  \  3  3 

of  Japhet.  Brought  into  life-long  contact  with  this  brilliant 
and  fascinating  world,  how  could  a  Jew  any  longer  talk  of 
all  countries  except  his  own  strip  of  seaboard  as  a  mere 
“  without,”  or  adopt  the  bigoted  comment  of  K.  Ishmael  that 
anything  except  the  Mosaic  Law  could  only  be  studied  at  an 
hour  which  belonged  neither  to  day  nor  night  ? 1 

On  the  other  hand  an  Alexandrian  of  the  school  of  Philo 
had  110  desire  to  apostatise.2  He  still  felt  the  spiritual 
superiority  of  Moses  and  the  Prophets  over  Plato  and  the 
philosophers.  He  regarded  the  Jews  as  priests  of  mankind 
and  compared  divine  wisdom  to  Sarah  the  princess,  and 
human  wisdom  to  Hagar  the  concubine.3  He  still  reckoned 
it  among  Ins  deepest  privileges  that  over  his  cradle  he  had, 
as  it  were,  heard  the  rustling  of  the  oak  of  Mamre.  The 
Mosaic  law  was  sacred  and  eternal ;  Greek  philosophy  was 
inspiring,  noble,  irresistible.  There  must,  he  fancied,  be  some 
middle  term  by  which  the  two  could  be  united.4  Such  a 
middle  term  could  not  be  found  in  the  trivial  and  hair¬ 
splitting  casuistry  of  the  Palestinian  schools.  He  felt  himself 
driven  by  an  imperious  necessity  to  show  that  nothing  in  his 
ancestral  faith  shut  him  out  from  the  charm  of  classical 
antiquity  and  the  splendour  of  philosophic  truth.  His  object 
was  to  defend  the  cause  of  Judaism  alike  against  sneering 
Greeks,  wavering  Jews,  and  narrow-minded  Pharisees5  by 
harmonising  the  dogmas  of  divine  revelation  with’  the 
discoveries  of  speculative  thought.6 

A  similar  necessity  has  occurred  again  and  again  in  the 
religious  history  ol  mankind.  It  has  driven  the  Brahmins  to 
provide  a  mystical  interpretation  for  the  Vedas.  It  has  com- 


1  Menachoth,  f.  99,  2  :  Derenbourg,  361. 

1  hilo  energetically  repudiates  all  renegades  from  Judaism.  He  tells  us 
how  one  such  “atheist  ”  hung  himself,  “  that  the  foul  blasphemer  might  not 

the  sulendid  defath  .  (1).e  fom-  n\ufaL  §  «),  because  he  had  sneered  at 

SaraK  d  d  P  t  °f  a  Smgle  letter  wlllch  God  had  made  to  Abraham  and 

y  De  Abr.  19  ;  De  Congr.  quacr.  1-5. 

4  De  Migr.  Abr .  §  16  ;  De  Plant.  Noe ,  §§  8,  17 
See  Neander,  Ch.  Hist.  i.  72,  73;  Herzfeld,  ii.  515. 

v  avoiV 6  h! ffS°ut?aitdails.Ale»Vldrie  c’etait  Ie  vent  de  la  conciliation,  et  s’il 

L  n  i  I  C  Ctait  moms  d  etw  trnP  exclusif,  que  d'etre  tente  d’issocier 
ensemble  des  choses  incompatibles. ”  Denis,  p.  7. 


134 


Borrowed  from  the  Stoics. 

pelled  the  Sofi  to  find  hidden  senses  in  the  Koran.1  It 
furnishes  us  with  an  explanation  ol  the  fact  that  the  Bible 
has  met  with  an  infinitude  of  varying  and  even  opposite 
interpretations.  Thinkers  so  different  as  Hillel  and  Shammai, 
as  Aqiba  and  Philo,  as  Origen  and  Luther,  have  sought 
support  in  its  pages,  and  maintained  its  unapproachable 
sacredness.  In  age  after  age  it  has  been  appealed  to  with 
confidence  alike  by  Gnostics  and  Literalists,  by  Aiians  and 
Trinitarians,  by  Schoolmen  and  Belormers,  by  Lutherans 
and  Zwinglians,  by  Calvinists  and  Arminians,  by  Catholics 
and  Protestants,  by  Sacramentalists  and  Quakers,  by  Church¬ 
men  and  Dissenters.  It  is  only  because  of  this  elasticity  and 
universality  that  the  utterances  of  divine  inspiration  “pervade 
innumerable  years  because  of  God.”  There  is  in  them  a  divine 
expansiveness,  a  many-sided  significance.  Men  insist  on  har¬ 
monising  them  with  current  opinions.  Now  the  only  possible 
method  for  thus  making  ancient  documents  of  felt  authority 
express  throughout  their  whole  extent  the  thoughts  of 
advancing  ages  is  the  method  of  finding  in  them  a  mystic 
sense  which  lies  below  the  surface — in  one  word,  the  method 
of  allegory.  In  the  schools  of  Palestine  the  impulse  ol  a 
patriotic  particularism  engrained  the  details  of  the  law  into 
the  life  of  the  people ;  in  Alexandria  by  an  exegetical  art  of 
turning  everything  into  parable,  the  meaning  of  the  Law  was 
altogether  volatilised  in  order  to  conceal  an  inward  and 
unconscious  apostasy  from  its  menacing  letter. 

Y.  The  Alexandrian  Jews  were  not,  however,  driven  to 
invent  this  method  for  themselves.  They  found  it  ready  to 
their  hands.  There  is  no  more  curious  page  in  the  history  of 
exegesis  than  the  undoubted  fact— a  fact  recognised  alike  by 
Mangey  one  of  the  best  early  editors  ol  Philo  and  by  Siegfried 
the  profoundest  recent  student  of  his  writings  that  the 
Apocryphal  writers  and  Aristeas,  and  Aristobulus,  and  Philo, 
did  but  adapt  to  Scripture  a  method  which  had  been  de¬ 
veloped  by  their  heathen  neighbours, — a  method  which  had 
long  been  applied,  and  was  under  their  own  eyes  being 

1  See  Franck,  Die  Kabbala,  31.  2  See  Reuss,  Gesch.  §  503. 


135 


Homer  Allegorised. 

applied  by  contemporary  thinkers  to  the  poems  of  Homer.1 
By  a  singular  concurrence  of  circumstances  the  Homeric 
studies  of  Pagan  philosophers  suggested  first  to  Jews  and 
then,  through  them,  to  Christians,  a  method  of  Scriptural 
interpretation  before  unheard  of  which  remained  unshaken 
for  more  than  fifteen  hundred  years. 

The  poems  ot  Homer  appealed  so  powerfully  to  the 
Greek  imagination,  their  felt  charm  and  freshness  was  so  in¬ 
exhaustible,  they  were  so  rich  in  beautiful  lessons  of  human 
experience  that  they  practically  became  to  the  Greeks  a 
sacred  book.  Plato  was  unable  to  harmonise  Homeric  crudi¬ 
ties  with  philosophic  convictions  and  therefore  with  daring 

consistency  he  banished  the  poets  from  his  ideal  republic _ 

banished  them  with  decision,  though  with  all  honourable 
circumstance.2  But  in  this  the  Stoics  would  not  follow  him. 
They  wished  to  bring  their  views  into  semblable  accord  with 
the  popular  religion,  and  they  accepted  the  method  of 
Theagenes,  Metrodorus,3  Stesimbrotus,  Glaukon,  and  others 
who  had  produced  commentaries  on  Homer,  and  had  ex¬ 
plained  away  the  many  passages  which  came  into  collision 
with  the  developed  religious  consciousness  of  their  day.  They 
could  claim  a  high  and  ancient  authority  for  their  views  in 
Anaxagoras,  who,  as  well  as  Pythagoras,  Democritus,  and 
Empedokles,  is  called  “  an  allegorist.” 4  Chrysippus,  says 
Cicero,  wished  to  accommodate  the  fables  of  Orpheus, 
Musaeus,  Hesiod,  and  Homer  to  his  own  opinions  of  the 
gods,  and  to  make  Stoics  of  the  ancient  poets.  Diogenes 
of  Babylon  in  his  book  on  Minerva  allegorised  physiologically 
the  story  of  her  birth.5  The  best  extant  specimen  of  these 

1  Mangey  in  his  Preface  (Philonis,  i.  v.)  says,  “  Magis  interpretationem 
Allegoricam  invaluisse  probabile  est  ex  mythologicorum  scriptorum  inter 
Etlmicos  fama  qui  tune  temporis  coeperant  fabulas  suas  propudiosas  et  impias 
mysticas  umbris  vel  obducere  vel  defendere.”  On  this  subject  see  Lobeok, 
Aylacpha7nus,  1829. 

-  Dc  Rep.  ii.  passim.  But  Plato,  too,  allegorises  Homer. 

3  See  latian,  Or.  ad  Graccos,  21  :  “Metrodorus  of  Lampsacus,  in  his 
treatise  concerning  Horner,  has  argued  very  foolishly,  turning  everything  into 
allegory.” 

4  Oiog.  Laert.  ii.  11,  So/cet  irpuros  t)]v  'OpripiK^v  tt o'npcriv  airocp'tivaadcu  tt ep\ 
aperr/s  sal  hlKCLLO(TVVr)S. 

0  Cic.  Dc  Nat.  Deor.  i.  15.  See  Oreuzer,  Symbol ik,  i.  ch.  vi. 


136 


Homeric  Allegories. 

Stoic  methods  may  be  found  in  the  Homeric  Allegories ,  at¬ 
tributed  to  Herakleides  of  Pontus,  a  scholar  of  Plato.  No 
book  can  prove  more  decisively  how  vapid  those  methods 
were,  and  how  untenable  were  the  results  to  which  they  led.1 

Finding  many  lines  in  Homer  which  seemed  to  them  un¬ 
worthy,  undignified,  morally  reprehensible,  and  even  positively 
blasphemous,  the  Stoic  Allegorists  made  no  allowance  for  the 
differences  of  opinion  and  custom  which  separate  earlier  from 
later  ages,  but  they  set  themselves  to  explain  away  all  such 
passages  as  containing  myths,  and  sacred  enigmas,  and 
adorable  mysteries.  In  carrying  out  their  object  they  had 
recourse  to  etymologies,  to  plays  on  words,  to  the  juxtaposition 
of  other  passages,  to  physical  allusions,  to  the  symbolism  of 
numbers,  to  the  emphasising  of  separate  expressions,  to 
inordinate  developments  of  metaphor,  and  interminable  in¬ 
ferences  from  incidental  phrases.2  By  these  means  there 
was  no  sort  of  difficulty  in  making  Homer  speak  the  language 
of  Pythagoras,  of  Plato,  of  Anaxagoras,  or  of  Zeno  ;  and  borrow¬ 
ing  from  them  the  very  same  methods  the  Alexandrian  Jews 
made  the  Bible  express  and  anticipate  the  doctrines  of  the 
same  philosophers. 

But  the  Jews  were  driven  to  allegory  by  a  far  more 
imperious  necessity  than  the  Stoics,  because  their  books  were 
the  constant  butt  for  Gentile  ridicule,  and  their  persons  for 
Gentile  persecution.3  And  it  was  all  the  more  easy  for  the 
Alexandrian  Hellenists  to  adopt  this  method  because,  in 
Scripture  itself,  they  found  much  importance  attached  to 
etymology  and  to  symbolic  numbers.  They  not  only  em¬ 
braced  the  allegoric  system,  but  they  gave  it  an  immense  and 
wholly  unwarrantable  development.4 

VI.  In  Philo  the  Greek  method  is  rigidly  systematised 
and  brought  to  its  completion,  though  he  was  by  no  means 

1  The  treatise  of  Herakleides  Ponticus  was  printed  by  Heyne  in  his  edition 
of  the  Iliad. 

2  See  some  excellent  criticisms  on  this  method  in  Cic.  Dc  Nat.  Bsor.  ii.  18. 

2  Jos.  C.  Ap.  i.  21  ;  ii.  3,  §  5  ;  B.  J.  ii.  18,  §§  7,  8. 

4  It  is  in  the  fourth  Book  of  Maccabees,  erroneously  ascribed  to  Josephus 
that  we  find  the  earliest  meeting-point  of  Jewish  and  Greek  methods. 


Three  Schools. 


137 


the  first  Jew  who  adopted  it.1  He  found  three  exegetic 
schools  existing  among  his  countrymen.  There  were 
Literalists,  of  whom  he  speaks  with  lofty  superiority  ; 
Rationalists  who  apostatised  from  Judaism  altogether  and 
whom  he  regards  with  sorrow  and  indignation;2  and 
Allegoiists,  who  had  already  learnt  the  secret  how  to 
reconcile  Judaic  institutions  with  Hellenic  culture.3  Philo’s 
works  aie  the  epitome  and  the  development  of  the  principles 
of  the  Allegorists.4  To  them— though  not  by  name— he 
constantly  refers ;  and  on  allegory  the  whole  Philonian 
philosophy  entirely  depends.5  Eclecticism  without  originality 
usually  has  a  chilling  influence  upon  belief,  but  by  the  aid 
of .  allegory  Philo  was  able  to  regard  himself  as  a  Stoic 
philosopher  and  yet  at  the  same  time  as  a  faithful  Jew.6 

He  was  very  little  imbued  with  Rabbinic  culture.7  Of  the 
Halakha  he  knew  nothing.  He  makes  little  use  of  the 
Haggada,  though  he  was  partially  acquainted  with  it.  Some 
ot  his  etymologies  and  a  few  details  of  his  theological  teach¬ 
ing  show  an  affinity  to  the  Midrash.  His  chief  culture  was 
Hellenic.  He  was  deeply  read  in  Greek  literature,  and 


Philo,  De  Pit.  Contempt.  §  3,  ean  (rvyypap.p.ara  iraXcuav  a udpwv  oi  . 
Tro\\a  pvTjpfua  rqs  ev  rois  aAA vyopovpevois  ideas  aneXinov. 

.J  J)e  Migr.  Abrah.  §39  ;  De  Mut.  Norn.  §  8. 

3  In  practice,  however,  Philo  was  probably  very  free.  He  went  to  the 

^  Ehriet‘  §  43)>  aUd  P°Ssibly  eVen  witnessed  buH-fights 

*.  “Passes  himself  emphatically  on  the  need  of  retaining  Jewish  insti¬ 
tutions  in  Dc  Migr.  Air.  §  18,  „V1  yip  Toits  (S,Toi,s  %  A™1* 

vor,T0,v  vnoKapBaroyres  ra  pir  &yar  ipcplfaoar  r&v  Si  SMuuie 

uKprapwav,  ois  hv  tyuye  rgs  tiixopelas.  Fl 

GaimPll  os  is  Personal'y  kn0"n  of  Philo  may  be  found  in  his  Leg.  ad 

AiX’r  H  is-  ir  C°T1'  Pa%lmi.Pc  SPe°-  tW-  tt  §  1;  De  Provid. 
(Aucher,  11  18, .  Euseb.  Praep.  Ev.  vm.  14  ;  Mangey,  ii.  646,  673)  •  De. 

fxT'll (Kiohter,  vi.  200,  236);  Jos.'  Antt.  xviii.  8  s}  1 

XX.  5,  8  2  ,  Euseb.  Praep.  Ev.  vm.  13  ;  H.  E.  ii.  §  4  :  and  in  the  notices 

s‘v  *bby  Jem,mei  Isld°le  Pelusiota,  Photius  (Bill  Cod.  cv.),  and  Suidas 

V,"  1  T  L"1  dat?,of  llis  bi,th  and  death  are  unknown,  but  as  he  was  an 

te(-‘Arh  ,Ab0thi’  V'  2i1}  "!“n  he  "'ent  as  an  ambassador  to  Gaius 
1  °  1  A'-D’  3'  ^  ie  may  have  been  born  B-C.  10-20.  A  good  sketch  is  sriven 

< JhrisLanityX  1  h*V*  collecte'1  the  maiu  fa*ts  “» -®* rly  dSijs  of 

6  Euseb.  Praep.  Ev.  viii.  14. 

E,bhe  rw.,  1TeV6r-  rc.fer  ‘°  “  th«  tradition  of  the  elders”  Fragm.  ap. 
hiisob.  harp.  Ev.  vm.  See  Bern.  Hitter,  Philo  und  die  Halacha,  Halle, 


138 


Philo  s  Eclecticism. 


quotes  from  Homer,  Hesiod,  Theognis,  Pindar,  Solon, 
Aeschylus,  Euripides,  and  Sophocles.  It  is  an  important 
confirmation  of  the  source  from  which  Jewish  writers 
borrowed  their  allegorising  method,  that  he  quotes  from  a 
book  otherwise  so  second  rate  as  the  Homeric  allegories  of 
Herakleides  Ponticus. 1  He  was  particularly  well  read  in  the 
Greek  philosophers  and  refers  to  “  the  great  Plato,”  “  the 
great  and  much-famed  Heraklitus,”  Parmenides,  Empedokles, 
Zeno,  Kleanthes  and  the  Pythagoreans.  From  the  latter  he 
borrows  the  symbolism  of  numbers,  and  from  Aristotle  the 
distinction  between  Svva/Ms  and  iureXe^eLa.2  If  he  re¬ 
mained  a  convinced  and  even  a  zealous  Jew  in  spite  of  the 
Hellenic  tendencies  of  his  intellectual  culture,  it  was.  because 
he  believed  in  the  strange  methods  which  his  predecessors 
had  borrowed  from  the  heathen.  This  belief  enabled  him  to 
combine  the  mystic  rationalism  which  he  had  learnt  from 
Plato  with  the  supernaturalism  which  he  owed  to  his  Jewish 
training.  It  was,  however,  impossible  that  the  deep  self- 
delusion  thus  induced  could  long  continue.  The  “  sophists  of 
the  literal  sense,”  as  Philo  calls  them,  had  good  grounds  for 
looking  with  suspicion  on  the  religious  philosophy  which 
tried  to  turn  Mosaism  into  a  Platonic  religion.  Events 
proved  that  the  God  of  Philo  w7as  but  a  vague  abstraction, 
not  the  living  God  of  Israel;  that  when  the  Law  was  ex¬ 
plained  away  into  vaporous  commonplace  it  ceased  to  be  a 
national  powrer ;  that  the  history  of  Israel  lost  all  its  beauty 
and  all  its  interest  when  it  was  turned  into  didactic  allegory 
and  poetic  mist.3  Philo  could  still  visit  Jerusalem  and 
practise  the  precepts  of  the  law,4  but  his  powerful  nephew, 
the  Procurator  Tiberius  Alexander  became  an  open  apostate 
from  the  religion  of  his  fathers.5 

1  Be  Leg.  Allegg.  i.  §  33  ;  Be  Incorrupt.  Mund.  §  61  ;  see  Siegfried,  p.  138. 

2  Quod  Omn.  prob.  lib.  §  1  ;  Be  Incorrupt.  Mundi,  §  3  ;  Quaest.  §  16  ;  Be 
mund.  opif.  §  4  ;  Leg.  Allegg.  1,  64  ;  BeNom.  Mutat.  §35.  See  tlie  quotations 
referred  to  in  Siegfried,  Philo ,  138-140  ;  Zeller,  iii.  352,  fg. 

3  See  Siegfried,  156-159. 

4  Ap.  Euseb.  Pracp.  Ev.  viii.  13. 

5  Jos.  Antt.  xviii.,  8  §  4.  xx.  5,  §  2.  Another  of  Philo’s  nephews  (?) 
the  Alabarch  Alexander  wrote  a  book  to  prove  that  animals  are  endowed 
with  reason.  Philo  answered  him  in  his  Be  Bivincitione.  Aucher,  i.  124-172. 


The  Literal  Sense. 


139 


Philo  professes  to  respect  the  literal  sense.1  It  is,  however, 
clear  from  the  tenor  of  his  works,  as  well  as  from  his  special 
observations,  that  he  regards  the  literal  sense  as  a  sort  of 
concession  to  the  weak  and  ignorant.  To  him  the  Bible 
famished  not  so  much  a  text  for  criticism  as  a  pretext  for 
tbeoiy.  Instead  of  elucidating  the  literal  sense  he  transforms 
it  into  a  philosophic  symbol.  To  him  the  literal  compared 
with  the  allegorical  sense  is  but  as  the  body  to  the  soul.  The 
passages  which  he  refracts  through  the  distorting  medium  of 
his  exegetic  system  may  be  counted  by  hundreds,  vdiereas  it  is 
very  rarely  that  he  abides  by  the  plain  meaning  of  even  the 
simplest  narratives.  Thus  he  cannot  leave  untouched  even 
the  humane  command  of  Moses  about  the  restoration  at 
nightfall  of  a  pledged  garment,  and  the  pledged  garment 
is  forced  into  a  symbol  of  the  gift  of  speech  ! 2  “  For,” 

he  says,  “  the  whole,  or  the  greatest  part  of  the  legislation  is 
allegorical.”  “  Most  things  in  the  law  are  manifest  symbols 
of  the  unmanifest,  and  uttered  symbols  of  things  unutter¬ 
able.”  Intercourse  with  alien  races  is  a  powerful  solvent  of 
fixed  beliefs.3  As  the  earlier  contact  of  the  Jews  with  Greek 
life  had  been  the  parent  of  Sadduceeism,  so  their  later  contact 
m  Alexandria  was  the  parent  of  an  esoteric  and  mysticising 
allegoiy,4  and  finally  Alexandrianism  in  its  dazzling  un¬ 
reality  was  the  precursor  of  the  Gnostic  systems  which  were 
the  later  offspring  of  a  combination  of  Eastern  with  Western 
thought.5 

The  complete  perversion  of  Scripture  which  results  from 
Philo’s  method  can  only  be  adequately  measured  by  those 
who  are  familiar  with  his  writings.  He  was  a  good  man,  a 
man  of  fine  genius  and  noble  instincts.  He  was  so  sincere 

1  He  generally  rationalises  it  (see  Opp.  i.  146),  but  sometimes  refers  to  it  as 
V  tv  cpavepuS  teal  npbs  rovs  ttoWovs  airdSo(Tis  ;  De  Abr.  29,  p  ppr^  Kal  (pavepd 
a-irdbocris  or  Kara  \6yov  (like  the  Midrashic  lbtTQ  i"lT).  For  liis  other  phrases 
see  note.  So  the  Mishnic  doctors  distinguished  between  the  letter  which  they 
called  the  body  (HSU),  and  the  mystic  sense  which  was  as  the  soul  (N‘nE>£0). 

'2  De  Somn.  i.  §  16. 

3  De  Joseph.  §  6  ;  De  Spec.  legg.  §  32. 

4  See  Yacherot,  Hist,  de  Vticole  d’ Alex.  i.  165 ;  Dollinger,  Judenth.  u.  Heid-n. 

x.  iii.  §  5.  Philo’s  favourite  mode  of  address  to  his  reader  is  “Ye  initiated  ” 
(d>  fxvcrai).  6  See  Baur,  Die  Christlickc  Gnosis,  234-240. 


140 


Perversions  of  Scripture. 

that  he  even  believed  himself  to  be  inspired.1  The  immeasur¬ 
able  differences  which  separate  the  views  of  one  age  from 
those  of  another  can  alone  account  for  the  fact  that  he.  and 
his  readers,  and  the  school  to  which  he  belonged,  should 
have  preferred  his  cold  abstractions  to  the  living  truths  of 
Scripture.  The  Scripture  narratives  of  early  ages  belong 
indeed  to  a  partial  revelation  and  betray  an  imperfect 
morality,  but  they  are  full  of  human  tears  and  human 
laughter,  and  are  enriched  with  some  of  the  deepest  lessons 
of  experience.  In  the  hands  of  Philo,  the  poetry,  the 
prophecy,  the  narratives,  even  the  simplest  legal  ordinances 
of  Scripture  are  evaporated  into  commonplaces  of  philosophy, 
or  turned  into  a  vehicle  for  the  rhetorical  expansion  of  moral 
platitudes.  Even  where  they  have  a  value  of  their  own, 
these  teachings  would  have  been  far  more  valuable  if  they 
had  been  conveyed  in  a  natural  and  straightforward  way. 
Philo  adopted  the  absurd  thesis  of  Aristobulus,  that  Greek 
philosophy  was  a  mere  plagiarism  from  Moses  and  the 
Prophets.2  But  if  the  sacred  writers  had  indeed  intended  to 
teach  the  tenets  associated  with  the  names  of  Plato  and 
Chrysippus,  all  that  could  be  said  would  be  that  their  method 
was  infinitely  less  suited  to  its  purpose  than  that  of  the 
Greeks,  and  that  it  had  so  completely  defeated  its  own  object 
as  to  convey  wholly  different  impressions  to  all  but  one  in  a 
million  of  those  to  whom  the  Scriptures  were  addressed. 

In  Philo’s  hands  the  Law  becomes  as  different  from  its  real 
self  as,  in  the  opposite  direction,  it  did  in  the  hands  of  the 
Halakhists;  and  the  histories  of  Scripture  are  as  completely 
set  aside  as  they  were  by  the  Haggadists.  Instead  of  the 
glorious  story  of  Abram,  the  father  of  the  faithful,  we  get 
a  typical  Stoic  who  departs  from  the  Chaldaea  of  the  sensual 
understanding  to  Haran,  which  means  “holes,”  ix. ,  the  five 
senses  which  teach  him  that  they  are  nothing  without  the 
soul  !  Finally  he  becomes  “  Abraham  ”  that  is  “  an  elect 

1  He  says  that  his  soul  was  frequently  filled  with  inspirations  (^eoArj-n-rei- 
aQai)  and  exercised  divination  (juaureveadai)  Be  Cherubim,  §  9  ;  rb  efiavTov  tt ados 
o  fxvpians  -rraOwv  olSa.  Be  Migr.  Abr.  §§  7—35  ;  See  Gfrorer,  Philo,  i.  58. 

See  Quacstioncs.  (Aucher,  ii.  pp.  83,  89,  359,  373,  &c.) 


141 


Perversions  of  Scripture. 

father  of  sound ;  ”  in  other  words  he  attains  to  a  knowledge 
of  God  and  marries  Sarah  or  abstract  Wisdom.  Jacob 
arriving  at  a  certain  place  where  the  sun  sets  becomes 
Wisdom  acquired  by  training,  coming  to  the  Divine  Word 
when  the  perceptive  faculty  is  found  to  be  useless.  When 
he  says,  “  With  my  staff  I  passed  over  this  Jordan,”  it  would 
be  abject  ( icnreLvov ) — quite  unworthy  of  the  lofty  under¬ 
standing  of  a  philosophic  allegorist — to  understand  the  state¬ 
ment  literally.  Jordan  means  “  baseness  ;  ”  the  staff  means 

discipline;  ”  and  Jacob  intends  to  say  that  by  discipline  he 
had  risen  above  baseness.  It  is  for  such  vapid  teaching 
entangled  in  endless  contradictions,  and  tedious  with  incessant 
tautologies,  that  the  Philonian  exegesis  asks  us  to  give  up 
the  simplest  and  most  instructive  of  human  histories  !  Philo 
has  no  scruple  in  making  the  narratives  entirely  meaningless. 
Indeed  he  shows  much  contempt  for  mere  narrative.  In  the 
literal  sense  Simeon  is  ferocious  and  vindictive ;  in  the 
allegory  he  becomes  the  type  of  spiritual  effort. 1  In 
Scripture  Joseph  is  an  innocent  sufferer  and  the  very  type  of 
youthful  purity ;  but  in  allegory  he  becomes  (in  one  aspect) 
the  type  of  the  sensual  mind  {(^ikocMfiuTos  /cal  (pLXoiraOrjs 
rods'),  and  of  one  wise  in  his  own  conceit, 2  though  in  another 
aspect  he  is  the  victorious  overcomer  of  pleasure !  The 
Patriarchs  in  Genesis  are  men  of  the  lowest  and  coarsest 
character ;  in  allegory  they  become  so  many  virtues.  The  in¬ 
difference  of  Philo  to  the  splendid  records  of  his  nation  is 
shown  by  the  fact  that,  after  Joshua,  he  does  not  allude  to  a 
single  king  or  hero  of  his  race.  Philo  is  concerned  almost 
exclusively  with  the  books  of  Moses.3  In  Mangey’s  index 
of  the  Scripture  references  to  his  works  in  one  volume, 
there  are  about  1000  references  to  the  Pentateuch,  eighteen 
to  the  Psalms,  eight  to  the  Prophets,  and  only  twelve  to  all 

1  Be  Ebriet.  §  23. 

2  Be  Somn.  ii.  14  ;  Quod  Deus  immut.  §  24  ;  Leg.  Allegg.  i.  §  63.  I  have 
?Den  some  specimens  of  Philo’s  allegories  in  Early  Bays  uf  Christianity,  i. 

He  calls  hint  Scicvtcctos  kcu  BeocpiAfCTTCiTos  twv  ttuhtots  yevo/itycvv.  *0 
tepevraros,  6  iepo<pa.VTit}s  opyiooy,  Kal  SiddanaAos  twv  detooy  (Bit.  Mos.  iii.  5  24  : 
Be  Gig.  §  12). 


142 


Philo s  Theology. 


the  rest  of  the  Old  Testament.  In  the  other  volume  there 
are  only  four  references  to  Scripture  passages  outside  the 
Pentateuch.  His  quotations  are,  for  the  most  part,  free 
reminiscences,  and  the  Prophets  are  but  rarely  referred  to— 
sometimes  only  vaguely,  and  without  their  names.1 

We  are  not  here  concerned  with  Philo’s  theology.  It  was 
a  mixture  of  elements  which  never  coalesced  sufficiently  to 
make  it  an  harmonious  system.  He  derived  it  more  from 
the  Timaeus  than  from  the  Book  of  Genesis.  The  old 
proverb  said  rightly,  “Either  Plato  philonises,  or  Philo 
platonises.” 2  His  dualism,  his  belief  in  the  eternity  of 
matter,3  his  assertion  of  the  incognisable  nature  of  God,  his 
“intermediate  Words,”  his  Platonic  idealism,  his  theory  of 
the  primeval  androgyne,4  his  contempt  for  the  body,  were  not 
learnt  from  Moses  but  from  the  Stoics,  and  “  the  holy  Plato  ” 
and  “  the  holy  community  of  the  Pythagoreans.”  5  He  only 
read  his  opinions  into  the  Pentateuch  6  by  impossible  processes 
supported  by  the  self-delusion  of  his  own  infallibility.  His 
God  is  a  philosophical  abstraction — “  a  Place  ”  rather  than  a 
Person — and  the  message  of  that  God  becomes  in  Philo’s 
hands  a  tedious,  vague,  and  ill-constructed  enigma.  His  whole 
system  is  a  frozen  sea  of  generalities,  a  “  death  kingdom  of 
abstract  thought.” 

VII.  Bet  us  follow  him  from  the  beginning  in  his  book 
“  on  the  Allegories  of  the  sacred  Laws.”  “  It  would,”  he  tells 

1  He  uses  the  formula,  ez7re  tzs  ti2v  tt a\aL  n rpocprirccv.  He  never  mentions 
Ezekiel,  or  Daniel,  or  quotes  as  Scripture  Esther,  Ecclesiates,  or  Canticles  (see 
Erankel,  Vorstudien  zu  d.  Septuaginta,  29.  De  Wette,  Einleit.  26).  He 
acquired,  however,  a  special  predilection  for  Jeremiah,  perhaps  from  traditions 
of  his  stay  in  Egypt.  De  Cherub.  14.  Siegfried,  p.  161.  He  makes  very  little 
use  of  Job. 

2  Suidas  ;  Jer.  Catal.  11  ;  Ep.  83. 

3  J.  G.  Muller,  Des  Juden  Philo  Buck  d.  W eltschopfung ,  1841  ;  Dahne,  i. 
188,  fg.  Fragrn.  ap.  Euseb.  Pracp.  Ev.  vii.  22  ;  viii.  13.  St.  John  emphatically 
repudiates  the  Philonian  dualism.  John  i.  3. 

4  De  Cpif.  Mundi,  24. 

5  De  Provid.  ii.  42  ;  Quis  rer.  div.  hcter.  33.  See  a  brief  summary  of  his 
theological  views  in  Zeller,  iii.  214. 

6  DlpD.  De  Somn.  i.  §  11.  This  term  is  also  used  by  the  Eabbis.  Philo 
would  not  even  speak  of  God’s  goodness,  &c.  since  He  is  better  than  goodness. 
He  can  never  be  known  in  the  How,  only  in  the  That  ('on  eVrt  olx  os  or  tto?os). 
Hence  he  calls  God  tinoios.  His  whole  being  is  in  the  four  mysterious  letters, 
the  Tetragrammaton  JHVH.  Deproem,  etpoen.  §  7;  Keim,  Jesu ,  i.  286  (E.  T.). 


143 


Philo's  Allegories. 

us,  “  be  a  sign  of  great  simplicity  to  think  that  the  world  was 
cieated  in  six  days  or  indeed  at  all  in  time.”  Six,  therefore, 
is  only  mentioned  because  it  is  a  perfect  number,  being  the 
hist  which  is  pioduced  by  the  multiplication  of  two  unequal 
factors.  On  the  seventh  day  God  did  not  “  rest,”  but,  having- 
desisted  from  the  creation  of  mortal  creatures,  began  the 
formation  of  more  divine  beings;  and  the  word  should  be 
rendered  “  He  caused  to  rest.”  Nature  delights  in  the 
number  se\  end  There  are  seven  stars  m  the  Bear,  seven 
parts  of  the  soul,  seven  viscera,  seven  limbs,  seven  secretions, 
seven  vowels,  seven  tones  of  the  voice,  seven  strings  to  the 
lyre ; 2  and  by  God’s  “  causing  to  rest  ”  on  the  seventh  day  is 
meant  that  when  reason  “  which  is  holy  according  to  the 
number  seven  has  entered  into  the  soul,  the  number  six  is 
then  anested,  and  all  the  mortal  things  which  this  number 
appears  to  make.”  By  “  the  green  herb  of  the  field  ”  Moses 
means  “  that  portion  of  the  mind  which  is  perceptible  onlv  by 
intellect.”  The  verse  “  God  did  not  rain  upon  the  earth,” 
means  that  God  did  not  shed  the  perceptions  of  things 
upon  the  senses.  To  take  literally  the  words  “  God  planted^ 
Paiadise  in  Eden  is  impiety ;  “let  not  such  fabulous  nonsense 
ever  enter  our  minds.”  3  The  meaning  is  that  God  implants 
terrestrial  virtue  in  the  human  race.  The  tree  of  life  is  that 
most  general  virtue  which  some  people  call  goodness.  The 
river  that  goes  forth  out  of  Eden  is  also  generic  goodness. 
Its  four  heads  are  the  cardinal  virtues.  Pheison  is  derived 
from  pheidomcd  “  I  spare,” 4  and  means  prudence,  and  being 

1  Comp.  Aristobulus  (ap.  Euseb.  Praep.  Ev.  xiii.  12),  5,'  t/3Bop.ddwv  5e  Kal 
vets  6  k6ct ptos  KVK\e7rat. 

t2  Philo’s  fancies  about  masculine  and  feminine  numbers,  see  De  Mut. 
Pom.  §  35.  De  Opif.  Mund.  §  3.  Jost,  Judenth.  i.  321.  Clement  of  Alexandria 
{Strom,  i.  15,  §  72)  calls  him  a  Pythagorean  (tV  trap  avrols  epLXocroepiav 
eyypavrov  yevopevyv  vpoKardp^ai  t9)s  vap  c/EAAt jai  epiXoeroepias  did  voXXwv  6 
F ydaydpeios  vvodeiKwai  <f>'i\a>v).  His  notions  are  half  Pythagorean,  half 
Kabbalistic.  Ewald  thinks  that  the  allusion  of  Clemens  must  be  to  the  elder 
1  hilo  (vii.  206  E.T. ).  On  his  Stoic  affinities  see  Zeller,  Phil.  d.  Gvicchen 
iii.  346-352.  ’ 

8  He  says  that  to  understand  literally  the  statements  about  Paradise  is  folly, 
ttoWt)  Kal  SvadepdnevTos  tv-hdeia  (De  plant.  Noe,  8).  For  similar  expressions 
see  Leg.  Allegg.  iii.  2  ;  Dc  Mundi  Opific.  3,  and  note. 

4  ^  does  not  seem  to  strike  Philo  as  strange  that  ancient  Semitic  names 
should  come  from  Greek  roots.  The  whole  allegoric  system  makes  much  use 


Philo's  Allegories 


144 

an  illustrious  virtue  it  is  said  to  compass  the  whole  land  of 
Evilat  where  there  is  gold.  The  name  Gihon  means  “  chest  ” 
or  an  animal  which  attacks  with  its  horns,  and  therefore 
stands  for  courage,  and  it  compasses  Ethiopia  or  humiliation  ; 
in  other  words,  it  makes  hostile  demonstrations  against 
cowardice.  Tigris  is  temperance ;  the  name  is  connected  with 
a  tiger  because  it  resolutely  opposes  desire.  Euphrates  means 
fertility  and  stands  for  justice.  Again,  Pheison  means 
“  change  of  the  mouth,”  and  Evilat  tl  bringing  forth,”  which 
is  an  appropriate  name  for  folly  which  always  aims  at  the 
unattainable,  and  is  destroyed  by  prudence  manifested  by 
speaking,  i.e.  by  the  changing  of  the  mouth  !  The  car¬ 
buncle  and  emerald  of  the  land  of  Evilat  stand  for  Judah 
and  Issachar.  The  Euphrates  does  not  mean  the  river,  but 
the  correction  of  manners.  The  literal  statement  that  God 
cast  Adam  into  a  deep  sleep  and  made  Eve  of  one  of  his  ribs 
is  fabulous;  the  meaning  is  that  God  took  the  power  which 
dwells  in  the  outward  senses,  and  led  it  to  the  mind.  The 
serpent  means  pleasure,  which  leads  Philo  into  a  long  disquisi¬ 
tion  about  the  rod  of  Moses,  and  the  tribe  of  Dan.  Dan 
means  “  temperance  ”  though  he  is  the  son  of  Bilhah,  which 
means  imbibing ;  he  is  a  serpent  in  the  path  that  is  in  the 
soul ;  he  bites  the  heels  of  the  horse,  because  “  passion  has 
four  legs  as  a  horse  has,”  and  is  an  impetuous  beast  and  full 
of  insolence,  and  the  soul  which  is  the  rider  of  this  horse  falls 
backwards,  i.e.  falls  from  the  passions  when  they  have  been 
wounded. 

Such  explanations,  with  long  digressions,  strange  etymologies, 
and  imaginary  parallels  occupy  two  whole  books  of  this  trea¬ 
tise.  The  third  is  of  the  same  character.  Moses  lays  down  the 
wise  practical  rule  that  a  night-burglar  may  be  killed  without 
incurring  blood-guiltiness ;  but  if  he  be  killed  in  daylight  the 
slayer  is  guilty,  since  he  ought  rather  to  require  restitution 
than  revenge.1  In  Philo’s  hands  this  passage  gives  this 

of  etymologies.  This  method  had  also  been  learnt  from  the  Stoics.  In  Latin 
they  derived  Mavors  from  “qui  magna  vertit,  Saturnus  quia  se  saturat  annis, 
Minerva  quia  minuit,”  &c.  (Cic.  Da  Nat.  Deor.  ii.  18). 

j  Ex.  xxii.  2. 


Philo's  Allegories. 


145 


strange  result : — if  any  man  cuts  down  the  reason,  and  is 
found  standing  over  the  reason  thus  wounded  and  destroyed, 
he  is  a  thief,  who  takes  away  what  belongs  to  God  and 
receives  a  severe  blow,  namely,  arrogance.  “  But,”  says  Philo, 
“  Moses  says  nothing  as  to  the  name  of  the  smiter,  for  the 
smiter  and  the  smitten  are  the  same  ”  ! 1 

The  death  of  Er  is  explained  as  follows : — Er  means 
“ leather,”  in  other  words  ‘‘that  leathern  mass  which  covers 
us,”  namely,  the  body  !  Elohim,  and  not  Jehovah,  is  said  to 
slay  Er  ;  and  the  meaning  is  that  goodness  condemns  the 
dead  body  to  death.  The  touching  incident  of  the  blessing 
of  the  two  sons  of  Joseph  is  made  to  signify  that  Jacob,  the 
supplanter  of  the  passions  and  practiser  of  virtue,  gives  his 
right  hand  to  Ephraim,  who  stands  for  prolific  memory,  and 
his  left  to  Manasseh,  who  stands  for  recollection  aroused  from 
forgetfulness.  The  Messianic  promise,  which  Philo  renders 
“  He  shall  watch  thy  head  and  thou  shalt  watch  his  heel,”  is 
explained  to  mean  that  God  says  to  pleasure  “  the  mind  shall 
watch  your  predominant  and  principal  doctrine,  and  you  shall 
watch  the  traces  of  the  mind  itself,  and  the  foundation  of  the 
things  which  are  pleasing  to  it,  to  which  the  heel  has  very 
naturally  been  likened.”  In  the  passage  about  Sihon  and 
Heshbon  (Numb.  xxi.  28-30),  Sihon  is  interpreted  to  mean  the 
man  who  destroys  the  sound  rule  of  truth ;  Heshbon  “  soph¬ 
istical  riddles  ;  ”  and  Debon  “  adjudication.”  Philo’s  comment 
on  the  budding  of  Aarons  rod  is  a  tedious  attempt  to  prove 
that  “  the  nut  signifies  consummate  virtue.”  2  In  the  perfectly 
simple  passage  about  the  land  of  promise,  Philo  explains 
“  cities  ”  to  mean  “  general  virtues ;  ”  houses  “  special  virtues ;  ” 
wells  “  noble  dispositions  towards  wdsdom  ;  ”  vineyards  and 
olive-trees  imply  cheerfulness  and  light,  the  fruits  of  a  contem- 

1  The  way  in  which  Philo  creates  difficulties  about  the  literal  sense  when 
there  are  none  except  in  his  own  confusions  of  thought  is  shown  by  his  com¬ 
ment  upon  the  Mosaic  rule  for  punishing  an  immodest  woman,  and  also  by 
his  absurd  remark  about  the  punishment  of  cutting  off  the  hand  of  a  son  who 
has  struck  father  or  mother  ( De  parent,  col.  published  by  Angelo  Mai).  The 
naive  confession  of  St.  Jerome,  “  Allegorice  interpretatus  sum  Obadiam  cujus 
historiam  nesciebam,”  might  have  been  made  by  other  Allego rists. 

2  Vit.  Mos.  iii.  §  22. 

L 


146 


Variable  Symbols. 


plative  life.1  The  five  Cities  of  the  Plain  are  the  five  senses. 
And  thus  every  person,  every  living  figure  who  passes  across 
the  stage  of  Scripture  history  ceases  for  all  practical  purposes 
to  be  himself,  and  becomes  a  dim  personification.  Moses  is 
intelligence ;  Aaron  is  speech  ;  Enoch  is  repentance ;  Noah 
righteousness.  Abraham  is  virtue  acquired  by  learning; 
Isaac  is  innate  virtue ;  Jacob  is  virtue  obtained  by  struggle ; 
Lot  is  sensuality;  Ishmael  is  sophistry;  Esau  is  rude  dis¬ 
obedience  ;  Leah  is  patient  virtue  ;  Rachel  innocence.2  And 
unhappily  these  counters,  of  which  the  significance  is  often 
made  to  depend  on  a  wild  etymology,  are  interchangeable— 
so  that  they  may  sometimes  stand  for  one  thing  and  some¬ 
times  for  another  thing  which  is  entirely  different  Japhetfor 
instance  is  m  one  sense  permissible  enjoyment;  in  another  he 
is  insatiable  desire.3  The  sun  is  sometimes  the  understanding 
(which  is  the  reason  why  Joseph  marries  the  daughter  of  the 
piiest  of  Heliopolis,  Gen.  xli.  45);  sometimes  the  bodily  sense, 
(so  that  the  sun  begins  to  rise  when  Jacob  no  longer  sees 
God,  Gen.  xxxii.  32) ;  sometimes  the  Word  of  God  ;  sometimes 
God  Himself.  And  thus  the  whole  Bible  becomes  an  insipid 
philosophical  romance  of  which  the  interpretation  floats  in 
the  air,  and  which  can  only  be  understood  by  the  uncertain 
aid  of  a  dictionary  of  metaphors. 

This  kind  of  exegesis  is  not  improved  but  rendered 
still .  more  valueless  by  the  futile  methods  adopted  to 
sublimate  these  pale  generalities  out  of  narratives  which 
thrill  with  life,  and  are  rich  with  the  lessons  of  experience. 
For  instance,  the  parallel  passages  which  are  introduced 
lave  nothing  but  the  most  distant  verbal  connection 
with  the  passage  explained.  When  we  are  told  that 

rod  planted  a  garden  in  Eden,”  it  is  worse  than  super- 
fluous  to  explain  to  us  that  the  reason  why  Moses  said 


a  I’r°fu9is>  §  31  ;  Quod  Dcus  immut.  §  21. 

Philo"  savs  (fiTtw”  °AA“  S‘ay°‘S"/’  De  Congr.  erud.  1-6,  and  passim. 

swallowing. ”  Z‘lpah  meaM  a  mouth  g°inS  forth,”  and  Bilhah  “  a 

fSotriet  ff^and  §  -63  1  iiL  85’  86'  For  ^phet  »»  De 

190-196.  ’  Q  eSt  “  Gm '  80  J  “d  generally  Siegfried,  Philo. 


Exegetic  Frivolity. 


147 


“  Thou  shalt  not  plant  a  grove  for  thyself/’  is  that  we 
are  only  to  plant  fruit-bearing  trees,  not  wild  trees,  in  our 
minds.1  It  is  neither  exegesis  nor  anything  resembling  it,  to 
say  that  “she”  is  used  in  “she  shall  be  called  woman” 
because  “  there  is  another  kind  of  outward  sensation  not 
derived  from  the  mind.”  It  is  exegetical  frivolity  to  say  that 
by  a  change  of  accent  the  words  7 rod  el ;  “  Where  art  thou  ?  ” 
in  the  Greek  version  may  mean  “  Thou  art  somewhere ;  ” 
and  then  to  build  an  argument  on  both  phrases.2  Philo’s 
method  was  equally  alien  from  the  natural  interpretation  of 
unsophisticated  piety,  and  from  the  accepted  results  of 
scientific  criticism.  It  was  a  hybrid  born  on  both  sides  of 
illegitimate  parentage.  It  was  the  strange  offspring  of 
Rabbinic  dogma  and  Greek  philosophy. 

Philo  held  the  most  rigid  views  of  inspiration,  though 
when  he  deals  with  them  practically  he  becomes  vague  and 
self-contradictory.  To  him  Scripture  is  “  the  holy  word,”  “  the 
divine  word,”  “  the  right  word  ;  ”  and  its  utterances  are  “  sacred 
oracles.” 3  Borrowing  a  theory  from  Plato,  he  imagines 
that  the  sacred  books  were  written  in  a  condition  of 
ecstasy,  which  wholly  obliterated  the  human  powers.  The 
vocal  organs  of  the  prophets,  without  any  co-operation 
on  their  part,  wrere  but  used  by  a  divine  ventriloquism. 
These  views  are  the  issue  of  nothing  better  than  the 
pseudo-philosophic  postulate,  that  “  the  mortal  cannot  dwell 
together  with  the  immortal.”  He  regards  the  books  of 
Scripture  as  divine,  and  as  having  been  written  by 
“  scholars  of  Moses,”  and  as  forming  part  of  an  indivisible 
whole,  which  was  supernaturally  significant  down  to  its 
minutest  parts.  Aqiba  himself  used  no  stronger  language  on 


1  Deut.  xvi.  21.  The  verse  means  “  Thou  shalt  not  set  up  an  Asherah  (or 
phallic  emblem  of  the  nature-goddess)  of  any  wood.” 

2  Philo,  even  if  he  had  more  than  a  smattering  of  Hebrew,  yet  speaks  of 
the  Greek  as  “our  dialect,”  and  of  “us  Greeks”  as  distinguished  from  the 
Hebrews.  Be  Cmf.  Ling.  2d;  Be  Congr.  crud.  8  ;  and  of  “  our  Alexan¬ 
dria”  {Leg.  ad  Gaium,  22). 

3  \pr\<jgio\,  Aoyia,  lepa  UpuTarov  7 papua,  6  hpbs  or  6e7os  A070S,  or 

6  opObs  \6yos.  Be  MiU.  Nom.  8  ;  Quis.  res.  div.  53  ;  Vit.  Mos.  iii.  23  ;  Be 
Monarch,  i.  9  ;  Be  Spec.  Legg.  iv.  8.  He  even  supposes  that  Moses  wrote  the 
account  of  his  own  death  and  burial !  {Vit.  Mos.  iii.  39). 

L  2 


148 


Views  of  Inspiration. 


this .  subject  than  was  used  by  Philo.  Yet  his  theory  of 
inspiration  was  a  mere  nasus  cereus.  His  Bible  practically  con¬ 
sisted  of  the  Pentateuch  alone,  and  parts  even  of  that  he  ex¬ 
plains  as  mystical.1  There  are  whole  books  of  the  Bible  which 
he  never  mentions,  and  others  of  which  he  makes  no  use. 
He  thinks  so  little  of  the  historical  books,  that  he  blurs 
tieir  vivid  details  into  a  phantasmagoria  of  dull  and 
indistinct  colours,  and  indignantly  repudiates  the  notion 
°i  mere  narrative  as  such  being  worthy  of  the  dignity 

°  i.  nlptrra  coris'('ers  that  the  Scriptures  were 

verbally  dictated,  yet  quotes  them  with  careless  variations 

“  “  ‘ “  h'eest  possible  paraphrases;  mingles  them 

v  ith  traditional  details ;  combines  them  with  views  borrowed 
rom  ieek  poets  and  philosophers  whom  he  also  re¬ 
verences  as  inspired;  and  treats  them  in  a  manner  purely 
arbitrary,  derived  from  his  own  individual  genius.**  He  would 
iave  been  saved  from  many  errors  of  detail  if  not  of  principle 
i  he  had  been  able  or  willing  to  study  the  original  in  which 
the  Scriptures  were  written.  But  he  did  not  think  it 
necessary  to  do  this,  because  he  most  mistakenly  believed  the 
.  eventy  to  be  not  only  “interpreters ”  but  also  “hierophants 
and  prophets,”  m  whom  spoke  the  “  divine  ”  “  the  sacred  ” 
and  unerring  word.4  Thus  alone  can  we  account  for 
the  singular  phenomena  of  an  acceptance  of  the  most 
mechanical  theory  of  inspiration,5  combined  with  the 

acquiescence  m  a  translation  which  constantly  diverges  from 
the  inspired  original.5  b 

(2)  i?Sp^egi^C“se°sf  aid^«evUW-Un<3er  the  heads  °f  W  °™les 
ecstasy.  &  °SeS’  aud  W  delations  given  to  him  in  a  state  of 

§  8,  oi>x  ie-ropiJyep°a\oytl  ‘'TT0P‘Kot  DeCongr. 

'  Vit  UmAilQ  y?6'0n  :philf?ied  “  HiIgen/eld’s  1873. 

i.  352.  ’  °U  Phll°  s  lgnoran“  °l  Hebrew  see  Jost,  Jndenth. 

6  fit.'  Mos.'iiis  2s’  T?r'5’  lteH  Div-]'Mr-  §  52  ;  De  Proem.  §  9. 

But  it  must  be  rememberedThat  be  l'°rds  E7rlfe'»vai,  evOoviricSv,  Kararrevoefis. 
natural  inspiration  o  the  sac  e1  vriters°  fotT  TS™  theor>'  of  s“l<- 

l’lato  and  the  Greek  phUosonbl  f°L1,e  ‘akes  tlle  conception  from 

heathens  and  to  himself  (see  Gfrorer  i  \  ^rr'  ’  ancl  ext‘!n<ls  it  to 

Scripture,  was  the  source  of  such  dogmas  T^ie^rr  Pbi?s°^’  ~>‘ 

o  •  J-iic  vieY  s  oi  J osejdhus  were  less 


Philos  Rules . 


149 


VIII.  When  once  the  Jews  had  embraced  the  allegorical 
method  it  was  easy  to  support  it  by  Scripture  arguments.  Philo 
proves  as  follows  that  Scripture  must  have  a  mystic  sense.  In 
Num.  xxiii.  19,  we  find  God  is  not  a  man ;  in  Deut.  i.  31, 
we  find,  The  Lord  thy  God  hare  thee  as  a  man  doth  hear  his  son. 
Philo  sees  in  these  two  passages  indications  of  the  two 
methods  of  divine  legislation,  the  literal  and  the  allegorical.1 
The  former  is  the  body  of  Scripture,  the  latter  the  soul,  which 
like  a  fine  fluid  pervades  the  whole  law.2  The  former  is  only 
for  the  vulgar,  the  latter  for  the  enlightened,  the  fe  w,  the  men 
of  vision  and  faculty,  the  initiated  who  can  perceive  and  see.3 
These  illuminated  persons  cover  the  living  rock  with  accretions 
which  they  refuse  to  share  with  any  but  their  own  followers, 
and  become  so  proud  of  the  incrustation  that  they  cease  to  be 
conscious  that  there  is  a  rock  at  all,  and  that  it  was  meant  for 
the  use  of  all  mankind. 

All  this  “  madness  ”  is  reduced  to  "  method  by  a  set  of 
rules,  half  Haggadistic,  half  Stoic,  but  entirely  inapplicable. 
By  some  of  them  the  literal  sense  is  positively  excluded ;  by 
others,  the  allegoric  sense  is  indicated  as  existing  with  the 
literal  side  by  side. 

1.  The  rules  by  which  the  literal  sense  is  excluded  are 
chiefly  Stoic.4 

It  is  excluded  when  the  statement  is  unworthy  of  God  ; 5 
when  there  is  any  contradiction;  when  the  allegory  is 

extravagant,  but  be  too  extends  inspiration  to  himself  and  to  others  besides 
the  Biblical  writers  (B.  J.  i.  2,  §  8  ;  iii.  8,  §  3  ;  iv.  10,  §  7).  Ewald  (vii.  203) 
well  points  out  that  8e6i rvevaros  (2  Tim.  iii.  16)  is  a  far  vaguer  adjective 
than  “a  Deo  inspiratus ”  (Yulg.)  or  “  Von  Gott  eingegeben”  (Luther). 

1  Philo,  Quod  Deus  iw.mut.  §  11  ;  De  Somn.  i.  §  40.  See  Gfrorer,  Philo,  i. 
68-113  ;  Dahne,  i.  49  ;  Hirschfeld,  Hagcid.  Exegese,  156  ;  Siegfried,  162-197. 

1  De  Migr.  Abrah.  §  16. 

3  De  Abr.  §§  29,  36  :  De  Plant.  §  9  ;  De  Cherub.  §§  7,  8,  and  passim;  De 
Somn.  i.  33. 

4  See  De  Somn.  ii.  2,  20  ;  i.  §§  13-17  ;  De  Abr.  §  15  ;  Leg.  Allegg.  i.  §  18  ; 
De  Cherub.  §$  7-9  ;  Quis  Her.  Div.  §  57. 

5  The  extraordinary  notion  that  Scripture,  of  which  they  regarded  every 
word  as  being  supernaturally  inspired,  is  full  of  passages  which  in  their  obvious 
sense  are  indecent,  unbecoming,  or  derogatory  to  God  is  repeated  after  Philo 
by  centuries  of  Patristic  and  Christian  expositors.  Thus  an  extravagant  ami 
unscriptural  theory  not  only  leads  to  allegory  in  one  direction,  but  pleads 
as  a  reason  for  the  necessity  of  allegory,  assertions  which,  if  true,  at  once 
disprove  the  theory  itself. 


150 


Philos  Rules. 


obvious.  If  Scripture  says  that  Adam  "  hid  himself  from 
God,  the  expression  dishonours  God  who  sees  all  things —and 
therefore  it  must  be  allegory.  If  we  are  told  that  Jacob  sends 
•  oseph  to  look  after  his  brethren  when  he  had  so  many 
servants, -or  that  Cain  had  a  wife  or  built  a  city, -or  that 
otiphai  had  a  wife,— or  that  Israel  is  an  “  inheritance  of 
God  -or  if  Abraham  be  called  “  the  father  ”  instead  of 
grand-father  of  Jacob— those  are  “contradictions,”  and,  there- 
ore,  the  passages  in  which  they  occur  must  be  allegorised. 

ihe,rules  which  Prove  the  simultaneous  existence  of  the 
allegorical  with  the  literal  sense  are  mainly  Rabbinic  2 

thus  if  an  expression  be  repeated  as  in  “Abraham 

laham,  the  double  name  expresses  first  affection  then 

warning  Again,  if  a  word  be  superfluous,2  as  in  “  ^thm 

thou  shalt  eat/’  it  implies  eo  tin  a  in  a  •  •  ^ 

\  ipues  eatmg  m  a  proper  spirit  and 

conscious  knowledge  u  TTo  Iprl  Li™  -ii 

i  lebl  him  forth  without"  means 

that  God  loosed  Abraham  from  all  the  fetters  of  his  body* 
there  be  an  apparent  tautology,  as  when  we  are  superfluously 
eminded  that  “  Esau  was  Jacob’s  brother,”  the  meaning  is  that 

.,  WaS  flU  Jacob’s  brother  though  he  was  a  sinner.2  If 

“  bTthA  uf  eXpreSsion>  as  from  ^  *0  oi,  in  the  oath 

by  the  health  of  Pharaoh,”  it  not  only  indicates  the  waver- 

mg  character  of  Joseph,  but  implies  the  difference  between 

the  discipline  of  Egypt  and  the  discipline  of  home. 

' '  Agam’  WOrds  may  be  explained  apart  from  their  punctua- 
1  Ex.  xv.  17. 

4eTcta  :  : in  five 

allegorical  (see  Low,  p.  133)  He  internrets  Z6  contmuo.usly  arbitrary  and 
sense.  Thus  the  Jews  took  pleasure m  U\ an  anti-Rabbinic 

of  the  heathen,  but  Philo  applied  Ex  xxh  b  asl,hemm£  the  gods 

vwiter  who  called  attention  to  thefovtvtwnV0 S°i  Ihe  first  Jewish 
Eossi  (t  1578),  who  calls  him  “  Jedidmh* the a?8  °u  hl°  Was  Azariah  de 
orthodoxy,  which  Rappoport  defends.  Alexandrian,  and  doubts  his 

<5  ^O).1  U  Voe8!!111^  17 ^IXX^'  mplrbv  Z0fxa  °mv  ridV<r" 

Wyaycv  atrrbr  tit.)  '  LXX'  **7 V  i  Gen.  xv.  5,  LXX. 

t  Lc9-  AUcgg.  i.  31. 

to  mean  that  ^  prudence ’^(gold  ^heUnqs^God^^Y^'  ^  th°  °l  is  ma,le 
baseless  kind  of  interpretation  see  Sieved,  i68,  fg  ^  m3tancesof  this 


Pliilo  s  Pules. 


151 


tion.1  Thus  Jacob  is  saved  by  the  Midrashim  from  telling  a 
lie  by  being  made  to  say  “I  am  [Jacob;  but  Esau  is]  thy 
first-born ;  ” 2  and  Philo  says  that  Zoar  both  is  and  is  not 
little  ■ 3  and  that  Jacob’s  words  at  Bethel  mean  “  This  is  not 
the  case,  that  the  Lord  is  in  this  place  ’’-since  God  is 

nowhere.4  . 

4  Ao-ain,  if  synonyms  are  used,  something  allegorical  is 

intended.5  Thus  if,  in  Gen.  i.  27,  God  “made”  man 

(iTroiycrev),  and  in  Gen.  ii.  8  He  “  moulded  ”  man  (« rfkavev), 

the  first  word  implies  the  earthly,  and  the  second  the 

heavenly,  man.  If  in  Gen.  xvi.  2  we  have  hi rfrovae,  and 

in  Gen.  xxviii.  7  elarjKovcre ,  the  first  word  implies  the 

obedient  hearing  of  Abraham,  and  the  second  the  careless 

hearing  of  J acob. 

5.  Plays  on  words  are  admissible  to  educe  a  deeper 
sense.6  Thus,  if  the  Law  bids  redeem  the  firstling,  of 
an  ass  with  a  lamb,7  then  since  wos  resembles  irSvos 
and  TTpifiaTov  is  derived  from  npoPalveev,  you  get  the  idea 
of  progress  resulting  from  work  ;  and  when  it  is  added,  “  and 
if  thou  wilt  not  redeem  it  thou  shalt  give  its  value ,  8  the 
meaning  is  “leave  off  thy  work,  if  thou  makest  no  ad- 

vance  r  ,  .  , 

6.  Particles,  adverbs,  prepositions  may  be  forced  into 

the  service  of  allegory.  Parts  of  words  may  be  made 
significant.  Each  word  may  have  all  its  possible  meanings 
apart  from  the  context;  so  that  if  e’£  av rfi?  means  “from 
her,”  in  Gen.  xvii.  16,  and  also  means  “immediately,’  and 
also  “  out  of  her,”  to  each  of  these  meanings  may  be  attached 
a  mystic  inference.  Words  may  even  be  altered  as  in  the 
Talmudic  rule,  “  read  not  so,  hut  so.’’  Thus  when  Gain 


i  t\  ir'  AT-,*  r  OQ  •  ~  Bereshith  Habba,  c.  6j. 

§  29’  *  De  Somn.  i.  §  32. 

3  De  Abr.  §  31.  .•  r  j  170 

8  For  many  instances  see  biegtnea,  its,  it 6. 

6  De  Congr ,  erud.  grat.  §  13. 

*  A/vf  “thou  shalt  break  his  neck.”  LXX.  tie  Si  i^tivs  *<"P**V 

°”»°So  the  use  of  iyKfv^Uu  (“cakes  concealed  in  ashes  to  be  baked  ”)  implies 
that  we  must  not  reveal  mysteries.  De  Sacr.  Ab.  ct  tain,  $  lo. 


152 


The  Work  of  Philo. 

killed  Abel,  crnUreivev  aiPov  is  meant  also  to  imply  that 

hhnlTr' \aVT0V’-it  ^  the  same  blow  he  spiritually  killed 
Tim!  V  An  U“lSUa  . expression  implies  something  mystical. 
Thus  when,  in  Ex.  vn.  15,  Moses  is  bidden  to  stand  by  the 

N  1  *  hp>  the  meaning  is  that  he  is  to  resist  the  seductive 
spe.chesofPharaohd  Lastly-butit  is  more  than  needS* 
u  n  sh  any  further  specimens-all  numbers,  animals,  birds, 
plants,  streams,  materials,  colours,  circumstances,  limbs,  names 
ien  and  of  countries  may  by  etymological  or  other  methods 

e  made  to  stand,  and  are  all  meant  to  stand,  as  symbols  for 
moral  and  spiritual  things.2  ^ 

Such  was  the  system,  such  the  presuppositions  which 

received6Vfer  7 PhU°  had  traditionally 
leceived  from  a  former  generation  of  allegorists,  but  of 

which  he  was  an  eloquent  and  fertile  expositor.  He  was 

e  ermined  to  get  circuitously  what  he  could  not  get 

Bible  fiUSMd  ^  PraCtiCa%  “  a  Bjble  *  * 
own  a  Bible  infinitely  less  venerable  and  more  obscure- 

endowed  with  claims  and  interpreted  by  methods  which 

were  not  derived  from  its  own  pages  but  were  a  feeble 

exotic  transplanted  from  the  theories  of  Greek  philosophers 

Let  me  however  say  in  conclusion  that  the  students  of  Philo’s 
woi  s  receive  a  far  more  favourable  impression  of  his  powers 
than  can  be  derived  from  mere  references  or  extracts.  If  they 
cannot  help  perceiving  the  verbosity  of  the  great  Alexandrian 
his  want  of  logic  of  lucidity,  and  of  firm  grasp  over  the 
hough  s  which  he  is  handling,  they  at  least  do  justice 
to  his  high  morality,  his  dignity  and  loftiness  of  soul  hi! 
wide  learning,  his  burning  enthusiasm,  his  obvious  sincerity 
‘S  mnocent  gladness,  his  deep  piety.s  Undoubtedly, 

2  bl-  §  41  •  Comp.  DcMigr.  Air.  14 

to  rely',1  W  the  Fathers 

his^tymclogies  was  once  current.  Euseb.  aViL  7.A  See* Ewaldf 

vf  w  fZ-,§  ?•  Un"hui  is  * 

phical  passage  in  De  Spec." Lcgg.  ad  init.  °  Phll°  0111  the  fine  autobiogra- 


Exegetic  Nullity. 

like  the  great  philosophers  in  whose  inspiration  he  believed,  he 
too  had  “  knocked  at  the  door  of  truth,”  and  ardently  longed 
for  the  furtherance  of  virtue.  But  we  are  not  here  dealing  with 
the  whole  work  of  one  who  was  a  witness  to  the  universal 
circulation  and  abiding  force  of  great  human  ideas,  and  who 
“  scattered  seed  in  Judaism  of  which  the  noblest  grains  boie 
fruit  in  Christianity.”  We  are  dealing  only  with  his  exegetic 
system,  and  of  that  it  must  be  said  quite  plainly  and  without 
the  least  circumlocution  that  it  is  absolutely  baseless.  It^> 
futility  becomes  still  more  obvious  when  we  find  the  same 
text  used  for  quite  different  purposes,  and  the  same  symbol 
applied  to  entirely  dissimilar  things.  Had  the  age  of  Philo 
possessed  in  any  measure  the  critical,  literary,  or  historic  sense, 
—had  it  at  all  realised  the  exquisite  human  force,  beauty,  and 
simplicity  of  the  sacred  narratives — the  Alexandrians  could 
never  have  gone  astray  after  such  meteor-lights  as  these. 
Whatever  may  be  said  of  Philo’s  other  merits  as  the  Ciceio 
of  Alexandrianism,  his  exegesis  is  radically  false.  It  darkens 
what  is  simple  and  fails  to  explain  what  is  obscure, 
neo-lects  the  important  and  lays  stress  upon  the  insignificant. 
It  sometimes  does  injustice  to  what  is  loftiest  and  deteriorates 
what  is  best.  While  it  looks  microscopically  at  words  it 
neglects  entire  passages,  and  gives  us  no  conception  of  the 
significance  of  whole  books.  Philo’s  system  is  one  of  vault¬ 
ing  ambition,  which  overleaps  itself  and  falls  on  the  other 
side.  It  fails  in  consequence  of  its  vain  contempt  ot 
grammar,  of  logic,  of  history,  of  archaeology,  and  of  the  most 
ordinary  canons  of  literary  expression,  and  by  the  substitution 
for  them  of  arbitrary  rules  in  the  supposed  interest  o  a 
recklessly-invented  theory  of  mechanical  inspiration.  a 
theory  led,  as  it  always  does,  to  two  results  equally 
deplorable.  It  produced  the  slavish  literalism  of  the  Rabbis, 
and  the  idealising  rationalism  of  Alexandrian  allegory 
It  made  an  esoteric  pride  the  common  handmaid  of  both 
systems;  and  being  attached  almost  exclusively  to  the 
Pentateuch,  it  extinguished,  alike  among  the  Rabbis  and 
the  Alexandrians,  the  living  inspiring  hope  of  a  persona 


154 


Exegetic  Nullity. 

Messiah.1  They  clung  to  institutions  which  the  earthquake 
was  rocking  to  its  foundations;  they  lost  entirely  the  things 
which  could  not  be  shaken,  and  which  remain.2 

Philo  s  whole  system/’  it  has  been  said,  “  may  be 
described  as  rhetoric  turned  into  logic.  Ignorant  of  the  true 
natuie  of  language,  presuming  on  its  accuracy,  allowing 
nothing  for  its  uncertainty  and  irregularity,”— misled,  we  may 
add,  by  an  eminently  faulty  translation,  and  drawing  inferences 
from  its  Greek  mistakes  as  though  they  were  supernaturally 
inspired— borrowing  from  alien  sources  a  system  originally 
mistaken  and  doubly  inapplicable  to  the  records  of  Scripture 
-misled  further  by  a  totally  different  system  of  exegesis 
which  was  indigenous  among  his  countrymen,  and  was  itself 
based  on  an  idolatrous  and  unspiritual  letter- worship— “  he 
infers  endless  consequences  from,  trivial  expressions. 

The  worst  extravagances  of  mystical  interpretation  among  the 
fathers,  combined  with  the  most  tedious  platitudes  of  a 
modern  sermon,  convey  a  very  faint  idea  of  the  manner  in 
which  Philo  improves  Scripture.”  3  in  etching  at  shadows 

the  Alexandrians,  no  less  than  the  Rabbis,  lost  the  substance. 

1  he  Rabbis  gained  a  crushingly  elaborate  ritual,  the  Alex- 
an  nans  a  pseudo-philosophical  religion.  Both  schools  alike 
lost  those  beliefs  which  had  been  the  heart  and  soul  of 
religion  to  the.  greatest  of  their  fathers.  The  clouds  were 
already  beginning  to  shine  before  the  Sun  of  Righteous- 


s  Erf*;  - 
H  rhSTJ-a-i . V 

detes  of  reconciliation,  which  are  (1)  God’s  goodne^  'AVth^h  r"*' 
of  the  forefathers  of  the  Jews ;  (3)  amendment  i,  t'  tL'»  ,  holmcS3 

MessTah.  ^them  aou/llaal  S  r^reYwo  'f 

8  <>  ,  Gerlach,  Weissag.  d.  A  T  86-89  *  ^  ^ n 1V- 

4p.uo  m.  r.  it  ^  would 

wise  remarks  of  Tkesm!m>^,  i  363.  See  the 


A  Futile  Eclecticism.  loo 

ness,  but  the  cold  stone  of  the  philosophic  Memnon  had  no 
music  to  greet  the  dawn. 

Such  awork  as  Philo’s— the  result  of  a  mere  juxtaposition 
of  alien  elements,  was,  as  a  whole,  foredoomed  to  failure. 
Mankind  could  make  no  use  of  a  contradictory  theology 
in  which  a  God  and  a  world  at  once  flee  from  and  seek  each 
other ;  of  a  God  and  a  chaos  both  without  attributes  and 
coevally  existent;1  of  a  system  which  placed  true  wisdom 
in  asceticism  and  ecstasy;  of  a  reformation  which  knew 
nothing  of  the  real  evils  of  the  world,  and  identified  divine 
blessedness  with  egoistic  self-sufficiency;2  of  a  religion  which 
continued  to  insist  on  external  ordinances,  while  it  admitted 
that  they  generally  led  to  gross  superstition ;  of  a  Judaism 
which  undermined  alike  the  past  history  and  the  future  hopes 
of  the  chosen  race  ;  of  a  Biblical  exegesis  which  took  scarcely 
any  account  of  the  noblest  portions  of  the  Hebrew  Scrip¬ 
tures :  of  an  illumination  which  “calling  everything  in 
question,  making  everything  unnecessary,  renounced  the  very 
foundation  on  which  it  stood  and  made  no  progress  because 
it  soared  in  the  air.  3 

And  yet  we  can  hardly  blame  Philo  if,  under  stress  oi 
circumstances,  and  the  painful  antagonism  of  Hellenic  and 
Jewish  culture— amid  the  taunting  criticisms  of  philosophers 
and  the  grovelling  letter- worship  of  Rabbis  he  eagerly  em¬ 
braced  a  method  which  rested  indeed  on  unverified  pre¬ 
suppositions,  but  seemed  to  offer  the  possibility  of  recon¬ 
ciliation.  Allegory  in  Philo’s  days  was  not  an  intentional 
falsification  nor  a  hypocritical  subterfuge.  It  was  a  phase 
of  thought  which  seemed  to  be  inevitable  in  the  education 


1  The  same  epithet  tolos  is  given  both  to  God  and  to  Chaos.  ^  e  v 

2  Philo,  De  Cherub,  radra,  d>  pAffrcu,  K€KadaPfieuoL  ra  bra  ws  icpa  ovrus 

'“’pKeim  Vc^^lCwafeqiiaiiy  partial  in  its  application  and  its  scope.  It 
flddreseed'only  one  part  of  man’s  nature,  and  one  class  of  men.  It  suppressed 
‘the  Sstincts  of  civil  and  domestic  society  which  Christianity  ennobled  ;  it 
nernetuated  the  barriers  which  Christianity  removed  ;  it  abandoned  the  con¬ 
i' f 1 t Christianity  carries  out  to  victory.”  “  Its  tendency  was  to  exalt 
knowledge  in  place  of 'action  ;  its  home  was  in  the  cells  of  the  recluse  and  not 
in  the  field  or  the  market  ;  its  truest  disciples  were  visionary  lherapeutw, 
and  not  apostles  charged  with  a  Gospel  for  the  world.  V  estcott,  Introd.  <  i . 


The  Legacy  of  Alexandrianism. 


of  the  world.  It  is  more  astonishing,  —  and  would  be 
more  culpable,  if  we  could  ever  call  men  culpable  for  not 

rising  superior  to  the  religious  opinions  of  their  age _ that 

Philo’s  methods,  teeming  as  they  do  with  impossibilities, 
and  based  as  they  are  on  the  shifting  sand,  should  yet  have 
been  adopted  and  practised  by  Christian  commentators  for 
thousands  of  years  after  the  high-minded  Alexandrian  had 
passed  away.1  They  rose  superior  indeed  to  his  continuity 
of  extravagance.  They  shook  themselves  free  from  the  spell 
of  Plato,  though  many  of  them  only  replaced  it  by  the 
harder  yoke  of  Aristotle.  They  discarded  much  of  Philo’s 
Pythagorean  Kabbalism,  and  his  vanishing  combinations  of 
abstract  symbols.  They  learnt  to  value  the  historic  books  and 
the  Prophets  even  more  than  the  Pentateuch.  Their  logic 
was,  on  the  whole,  less  feeble  and  fantastic.  They  do  not 
show  themselves  wholly  incapable  of  studying  entire  passages 
as  well  as  fragmentary  expressions,  and  entire  books  as  well 
as  separate  paragraphs.  They  do  not  adopt  the  exclusively 
microscopic  method  of  magnifying  each  phrase  and  clause  as 
though  it  had  no  connexion  with  anything  which  lay  out  of 
the  immediate  field  of  vision.  To  them  Abraham  and  the 
Patriarchs  are  something  more  than  counters  to  be  arbitrarily 
shuffled  about  as  symbols  of  other  things.  Yet  into  many  of 
these  faults  to  a  great  extent  they  fell.*  Centuries  had  to 
elapse  before  men  ceased  to  explain  Scripture  in  non¬ 
natural  senses;  before  they  ceased  to  isolate  and  distort 
its  separate  expressions;  before  they  ceased  to  rely  on 
purely  verbal  and  accidental  parallels;  before  they  saw 
that  Semitic  literature  was  not  to  be  interpreted  by  the 


t  1  ffb]es  that  Philo  had  met  St.  Peter  at  Rome  (Euseb  H.  E.  ii  17  • 
Jer.  Catal.  11),  and  that  he  had  even  embraced  Christianity  (Photius  Cod 
c\ .  Suidas  s.v  SiAw)  may  be  dismissed  without  further  notice  •  as  well  as 
the  notions  that  m  describing  the  Therapeutae  (Ewald,  v  375-89)  he  was 

borrowed  fron^t^Pau!  SwTfr  ^  the  -iion  thlttn™ 

Moses-  They  arose  from  ™ 

-  Allusions  to  Philo  by  the  Fathers  may  be  seen  in  Justin  Cohort,  pp  10 

MA  SMS 


A  Divine  Progress. 


-t  \rr 

lo/ 


ritjid  syllogisms  of  Western  logic;  before  they  ceased  to 
bring  to  Scripture  what  they  could  never  have  fairly  deduced 
from  it;  before  they  dreamed  of  applying  to  Holy  Writ  the 
verifying  faculties  of  a  reason  and  conscience  informed  by  the 
Gospel  and  illuminated  by  the  Spirit  of  God  Himself;  before 
they  suspected  the  absurdity  of  rationalising  here  and 
spiritualising  there  in  accordance  with  rules  which  had  no 
foundation ;  before  they  thought  it  in  the  least  necessary  to 
master  the  original  languages  in  which  the  Scriptures  were 
written ;  before  they  ceased  to  quote  it  in  defence  of  their 
own  worst  passions  and  their  own  least  venial  ignorance  ; 
before  they  attained  any  conception  of  it,  as  being  composed 
of  books  of  very  unequal  value,  the  far  from  homogeneous 
literature  of  two  millenniums— as  being  a  progressive  revela¬ 
tion,  fragmentary  and  multifarious,  though  from  the  first 
dimly  prophesying  of  a  final  perfection. 

IX.  Yet  let  us  not  fail  to  notice,  again  and  again,  that  there 
is  a  Divine  Progress,  an  Evangelical  Preparation.  Humanity 
advances  through  the  midst  of  errors,  but  it  advances  still. 
Truth  wins  its  way  though  it  have  to  struggle  on  “  from 
scaffold  to  scaffold,  and  from  stake  to  stake/’  God  speaks 
in  many  voices.  He  has  means  of  communicating  with  the 
soul  other  than  through  the  letters  of  a  Book.  Even 
those  who  had  no  sacred  Book  were  not  left  without 
witness  that  we  are  all  His  offspring.  That  which  may  be 
known  of  God  was  still  manifested  unto  them.  Neither 
Halakha,  nor  Haggada,  not  Qabbala,  nor  rules  borrowed  from 
Chrysippus  in  support  of  theories  derived  from  Plato,  can 
wholly  rob  mankind  of  the  plain  truths  of  God.  They  who 
have  the  priceless  blessing  of  a  sacred  Canon  may  indeed 
misinterpret  it  by  false  methods,  and  mingle  it  with  alien 
elements  ;  but  no  faithful  soul  can  wholly  miss  its  most 
essential  truths.  All  who  search  it  with  an  honest  and  good 
heart  will  find  therein  all  things  necessary  to  salvation.  The 
Alexandrians,  widely  as  they  erred  in  exegesis,  had  still 
high  truths  to  teach.  In  reading  their  best  aspirations  we 
are.  as  it  were,  “  fanned  bv  the  air  of  the  New  Testament/' 


158 


A  Divine  Progress. 

The  dim  Logos  of  Philo  appears  clothed  with  the  true  and 
eternal  glory  of  Divine  Humanity  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  ; 
and  some  of  Philo’s  phrases  and  conceptions  are  used  with 
yet  nobler  purpose  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  If  the 
question  has  occurred  to  us  “  How  were  the  souls  of  men 
kept  pure  and  holy  amid  the  externalism  of  the  Rabbis,  and 
the  vague  allegoric  philosophy  of  the  Alexandrians  ?  ”  the 
answer  is  not  far  to  seek.  It  shall  be  given  in  the  voice  of 
an  Alexandrian  :  “  Thou,  oh  God,  canst  show  thy  strength  at 
all  times  when  thou  wilt.  Thou  hast  mercy  upon  all,  for  thou 
canst  do  all  things,  and  winkest  at  the  sins  of  men  because 
they  shall  amend.  For  thou  lovest  all  the  things  that  are, 
and  abhorrest  nothing  which  thou  hast  made.  But  thou 
sparest  all ;  for  they  are  thine ,  oh  Lord,  Thou  lover  of  souls.”  i 
It  shall  be  given  in  the  yet  sweeter  and  loftier  language 
of  the  Psalmist :  “  The  statutes  of  the  Lord  are  right”  and 
rejoice  the  heart ;  the  commandment  of  the  Lord  is  pure, 
and  giveth  light  unto  the  eyes.  .  .  Moreover  by  them  is  thy 

servant  warned,  and  in  keeping  of  them  there  is  great 
reward.” 


1  Wisdom,  xi.  23-26. 


.  “  Reliqui  Scripturas  quidem  confitentur,  interpretation  vero  conver 
tunt.” — Iren.  Adv.  Baer.  iii.  12. 

“Tantum  veritati  obstrepit  adulter  sensus  quantum  et  corruptor 
stylus.” — Tert.  Apol.  17. 

“  Sunt  enim  multa  verba  in  Scripturis  divinis  quae  possunt  trabi  ad 
eum  sensum  quem  sibi  unusquisque  preesumit.” — Recogn.  Clem.  x.  42. 

“  Sed  ad  sensum  suum  incongrua  aptant  testimonia,  quasi  grande  sit 
et  non  vitiosissimum  docendi  genus  depravare  sententias,  et  ad  volun- 
tatem  suam  Scripturam  trahere  repugnantem Jer.  Ad  Paulin,  ep. 
53,  7. 

“  Concerning  the  mystical  sense  it  may  be  observed  that  we  may  err 
in  two  ways,  either  by  seeing  it  where  it  is  not,  or  by  taking  it  other¬ 
wise  than  it  ought  to  be  taken.”— Dante,  De  Monarchia,  iii. 


lecture  IV. 


PATRISTIC  EXEGESIS. 

“  That  your  faith  should  not  stand  in  the  wisdom  of  men.  1  Con.  ii. 

In  supporting  some  special  dogma,  or  private  interpre¬ 
tation — in  asserting  the  infallible  accuracy  of  some  paity 
opinion  which  would  fain  claim  to  be  that  of  the  universal 
Church  i— ecclesiastical  controversialists  have  often  appeale 
to  Christ’s  promise  of  the  Spirit  which  should  lead  the 
Apostles  into  all  truth,2  and  they  have  usually  identified  this 
promise  with  a  power  of  rightly  interpreting  the  language  of 
Scripture.  It  is  strange  that  facts  the  most  obvious,  and 
drawn  from  every  branch  of  human  investigation,  have  not 
been  sufficient  to  expose  the  folly  of  claiming  that  promise 
without  its  obvious  limitations.  “  Into  all  truth  which  is  m 
any  way  necessary  to  salvation-"  mtojdl  truth  which  s 
essential  to  the  eternal  welfare  of  the  human  soul-the  Holy 
Spirit  of  God  has  in  all  ages  guided  all  who  have  not  resisted 
His  "racious  influence ;  but  He  has  never  taught  men  the 
truths  which  are  independently  attainable  by  the  exercise  of 
human  intellect,  or  those  which  are  left  to  be  revealed  by 
the  broadening  light  of  universal  experience  Nor  can  we 
except  from  this  statement  a  multitude  of  truths,  w  hie 
many  would  represent  as  of  primary  importance.  The  stern 

>  *«  Granting  tliat  Christianity  is  the par.  truth, 

119’  ~ 

2  John  xvi  13. 


162 


The  Fathers. 

logic  of  circumstance,  the  clear  verdict  of  history,  is  decisive 
against  a  priori  theories  and  subjective  fancies.  The  Scrip¬ 
tures  contain  the  Word  of  God ;  and  in  the  Scriptures  every 
honest  and  earnest  soul  may  find  the  few  and  simple  things 
winch  the  Lord  requires  of  him.  Yet  the  Scriptures  never 
claim  for  themselves  as  a  whole  the  supernatural  dictation  or 
miraculous  infallibility  which  from  the  days  of  the  Rabbis  have 
been  claimed  for  them.  They  do  not  even  furnish  any  test  of 
their  own  canomcity;  nor  do  they  protect  themselves  from 
grievous  mistranslation;  nor  do  they  give  any  definition  of 
the  nature  of  their  own  inspiration ;  nor  do  they  lay  down 
any  of  its  limits  or  degrees ;  nor  has  their  text  been  kept  free 
irom  numberless  variations ;  nor  do  they  furnish  any  rules 
whatever  as  to  the  manner  in  which  their  difficulties  should 
lightly  be  explained.  All  such  questions  are  left  to  the 
candour,  the  honesty,  the  wisdom,  the  experience  of  those 
who  seek  for  truth  by  the  appointed  means ;  and  who  even 
then  will  have  no  claim  to  infallibility,  nor  have  it  in  their 
power  to  impose  “  the  senses  of  men  upon  the  words  of  God, 
the  special  senses  of  men  upon  the  general  words  of  God,”  or 
to  lay  them  upon  men’s  consciences  together  under  the  equal 
penalty  of  death  and  damnation.1 

The  history  of  exegesis  thus  far  has  been  in  great  measure 
a  history  of  aberrations.  If  we  turn  to  the  Fathers  with  the 
°Pe  ^at  now  at  we  shall  enter  the  region  of  unim- 
peachable  methods  and  certain  applications,  we  shall  be  dis¬ 
appointed.  I  would  earnestly  ask  not  to  be  misunderstood.  I 
gladly  admit  that  there  are  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers 
not  only  many  noble  truths  but  also  many  felicitous  ex¬ 
positions.  I  also  frankly  allow  that  much  of  the  staple 
of  all  recent  commentaries,  so  far  as  they  are  simply  moral 
and  spiritual,  is  to  be  found  in  their  pages.  But  this 
does  not  shake  the  fact  that  their  exegesis  in  the  proper 
sense  of  the  word  needs  complete  revision  both  in  its 
principles  and  in  its  details.  There  are  but  few  of  them 
whose  pages  are  not  rife  with  errors— errors  of  method,  errors 

1  CkiUingworth,  c.  iv.  §  16. 


163 


Not  to  be  Scorned. 


of  fact,  errors  of  history,  of  grammar,  and  even  of  doctrine. 
This  is  the  language  of  simple  truth,  not  of  slighting  dis¬ 
paragement.  I  should  be  most  unwilling  to  speak  with 
disrespect  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church.  They,  like  our¬ 
selves,  were  the  children  of  their  age.  They  were  hampered 
by  the  conditions,  influenced  by  the  culture,  swayed  by  the 
prejudices  of  the  times  in  which  they  lived.  Some  of  them 
were  men  pre-eminent  in  holiness ;  a  few  of  them  were  wise, 
eloquent,  deeply  read  in  the  human  heart,  fired  with  the 
kindling  enthusiasm  of  spiritual  life  ;  several  of  them  were 
men  of  wide  learning  ;  one  or  two  of  them  were  also  men  of 
high  genius.  Their  original  thoughts,  their  pious  exhorta¬ 
tions,  their  homiletic  skill,  their  spiritual  insight,  their  practical 
application  of  the  lessons  of  Scripture  will  always  be  valuable. 
The  diligence  of  some  of  them  has  preserved  for  us  traditional 
information  by  which  light  is  thrown  on  various  passages.  I 
would  not  echo  the  scornful  language  either  of  Milton,  of 
Grotius,1  of  Chillingworth,  or  of  Middleton.2  “  Whatsoever,” 
says  Milton,  “  time  or  the  heedless  hand  of  blind  chance  hath 
drawn  from  of  old  to  this  present  in  her  huge  Dragnet,  whether 
Fish  or  Sea-weed,  Shells  or  Shrubbs,  unpicked,  unchosen,  those 
are  the  Fathers ;  ”  and  “  it  came  into  my  thoughts  .  .  .  that  I 
could  do  Religion  and  my  Country  no  better  service  for  the 
time  than  doing  my  utmost  endeavour  to  re-call  the  People 
of  God  from  this  vain  foraging  after  Straw,  and  to  reduce 
them  to  their  firm  Stations  under  the  Standard  of  the  Gospel ; 
by  making  appear  to  them,  first  the  insufficiency,  next  the 
inconveniency,  and  lastly  the  impiety  of  these  gay  Testimonies 


1  Compare  Grotius,  De  Studiis  instil.  (1635),  p.  238.  Patres  et  Patrum 
erudiST  raaximi  facio,  sed  tamen  tibi  autor  non  mm  ut  illos  hoc 
ouidem  actate  legas  sed  differas  .  .  .  Nam  multa  liabent  non  solum  fluxa 
■  mbi-ua  futilia  et  euperstitiosa,  sed  etiam  quaedam  non  usquequaque  proba  et 
sSra  ”  He  ”oes  on  to  add  that  they  are  often  unorthodox.  I  need  only  aUude 
'  VLqi  '  TraUi  de  TEmploi  des  Saints  Fires,  1632  (answered  by  Vi .  Reel  es, 
TuZiog™tflU™hL  (1709),  and  the  Rev.  Prof.  Blunt,  On  the  Right  Use 
of  the  Fathers  (1857),  and  Barbeyrac,  TraiU  de  la  Morale  des  1  ires. 

*M kldleton  Free  Enq u iry,  1729.  Among  others  who  have  spoken  very 
slightingly  of  the  Fathers  might  be  mentioned  Simon  Episeopms  Seehim 
ZZT  j)r  Pvjopv  Tract  No.  57,  p.  10.  Coleridge  said  of  Luther, 
Medanehthon  Calvin,  that  “the  least  of  them  was  not  inferior  to  St.  Augustine 
a!id  worth  a  brigade  of  Cyprians,  Finnilians,  and  the  like  (Remains,  in.  2/o). 

M  2 


164 


Their  Difficulties. 

that  their  great  Doctors  would  bring  them  to  dote  on.”1  W-e 
can  hardly  wonder  at  the  accent  of  indignation  which  rings 
through  the  words  of  the  mighty  Puritan  poet,2  when  we 
remember  that  the  Fathers  had  been  thrust  into  a  position  of 
autocracy  which  they  repeatedly  and  emphatically  disclaim, 
and  which  had  they  ever  claimed  it  would  have  been  com¬ 
pletely  nullified  by  their  own  writings.  Their  glory  is  for  the 

most  part  the  glory,  not  of  intellect,  but  of  righteousness  and 
faith. 

The  Church  writers  of  the  earlier  ages  were  surrounded 
with  difficulties.  It  was  not  till  the  fourth  century  that  the 
Canon  of  the  New  Testament  was  finally  established;  it  was 
not  till  the  sixteenth  that  the  Canon  of  even  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  was  clearly  defined.  The  views  entertained  about  the 
Old  Testament  and  the  methods  of  its  interpretation  were  to 
a  great  extent  those  of  the  Jewish  schools.  It  was  regarded 
not  as  the  history  of  a  partial  revelation,  of  which  the  main 
provisions  had  been  altered  by  the  New  Covenant,  but  as  a 
supernatural  and  homogeneous  document  of  equal  authority 
with  toe  writings  of  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists.  And  the 
entire  libiaiy  of  thirty-nine  books,  which  hardly  any  of  the 
Fathers  could  read  in  the  original,  was  appealed  to  as  the 
final  authority  alike  by  Ebionites,  who  taking  them  literally 
maintained  the  eternal  validity  of  Mosaism,  and  by  Gnostics, 
who  interpreting  them  allegorically  deduced  from  their  pages 
the  wildest  extravagances  of  heresy.  Without  deep  learning, 
without  linguistic  knowledge,  without  literary  culture,  with¬ 
out  any  final  principles  either  as  to  the  nature  of  the  sacred 


1  Of  Prelat'ical  Episcopacy. 

2  labFrinth  of  Councils  and  Fathers,  an  entangled 

Snf  “ MahnvhF  ?>piSVl0VeS  t0  ^  in-’ “Milton,  Of  True  Religion,  ad 
in  d.  Many  Fathers  discover  more  heresies  than  they  will  refute,  and  that 

often  for  heresy  which  is  the  truer  opinion.”  “  I  dare  to  he  known  to  think 

our  sage^and  serious  poet  Spenser  to  be  a  better  teacher  than  Scotus  or 

U  1S  Wrong’  he  sa-ys’  “  t0  dote  uPon  immeasurable, 
innumerable,  and  therefore  unnecessary  and  unmerciful  volumes,  choosiim 

SntW0^  \  r6  sPe<r10us  of  the  Fathers,  than  to  take  a  sound 

i  P  ;  °f  a  plam  uPri«ht  man>  ."—Of  Reformation  in  England. 

•  f -Irj*  commentationes,  de  quibus  hoc  summatim,  accipe.  Ouic- 

quid  mi  dixermt,  neque  ex  libris  sacris  aut  ratione  aliqua  satis  idonea  coufirm- 
a\ennt,  perinde  nnhi  ent  ac  si  quis  alius  e  vulgo  dixisset.” — Defens.  c.  4. 


Tlieir  Exegesis. 


165 


writings  or  the  method  by  which  they  should  be  interpreted 
— surrounded  by  Paganism,  Judaism,  and  heresy  of  every 
description,  and  wholly  dependent  on  a  faulty  translation, - 
the  earliest  Fathers  and  Apologists  add  little  or  nothing  to  our 
understanding  of  Scripture.  They  are  not  to  be  blamed  for 
deficiencies  which  were  inevitable.  They  could  not  transcend 
the  resources  of  the  days  in  which  they  lived.  _  It  is  their 
eternal  "lory  that  they  won  the  battle  of  Christianity  by  t  eir 
innocence,  their  courage,  their  faithfulness  even  unto  death 
to  the  Gospel  message  with  which  they  had  been  mtius  ec  , 
but  we  turn  to  them  in  vain  for  the  justification  of  any  claim 
to  the  possession  of  an  infallible  tradition.  Their  acquaint¬ 
ance  with  the  Old  Testament  is  incorrect,  popular,  and  lull 
of  mistakes ;  their  Scriptural  arguments  are  often  baseless; 
their  exegesis — novel  in  application  only  is  a  ciaos 
elements  unconsciously  borrowed  on  the  one  hand  from 
Philo  and  on  the  other  from  Rabbis  and  Kabbalists.  J 
claim  “  a  grace  ”  of  exposition,  which  is  not  justified  by  the 
results  they  offer,  and  they  suppose  themselves  to  be  m 
possession  of  a  Christian  Gnosis 1  of  which  the  specimens 
offered  are  for  the  most  part  entirely  untenable. 

1  The  onlv  Bible  used  by  the  Apostolic  Fathers  was  the 
Septuagint,  and  they  rely  on  its  supposed  i^piration  even 
when  it  differs  widely  from  the  original  Hebrew.  But  while 
they  proclaim  the  words  of  the  Bible  to  be  the  very  words  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  they  treat  them  with  the  strangest  ree  om. 
They  alter;  they  misquote;  they  combine  widely  different 
nassa^es  of  different  authors;  they  introduce  inciden  s 
borrowed  from  Jewish  ritual  and  Jewish  legend  ■  they 
make  more  use  of  the  Old  Testament  than  of  the  hew  , 

>  Ep.  Barmb.  c.  ix.  and  passim  Bede .on 1  of  UMer>  p.  81. 

2  For  some  remarks  on  the  father.  •  writings  was  not  of  course  m- 

s  The  dissemination  of  ^ ^bef0me  kno^ni,  and  also  to 

Btantaneous.  It  took  some  time  fo  [h  the  Jewish  Scriptures, 

he  recognised  as  being  of  coordinate  H(/makeg 

The  epistle  of  Clement  is  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 

sr  r is&ftz 

A^^'and  the '  AmTpttonof  Moses ;  158  times  from  the  New  Testament 
but  with  only  3  direct  quotations. 


166 


Clement  of  Rome. 


they  not  only  appeal  to  apocryphal  writings  as  of  inspired 
authority,  but  build  arguments  upon  them.  In  matters  of 
interpretation  they  show  so  little  title  to  authority  that  their 
views  have  been  abandoned  by  the  whole  Christian  world. 

Passing  over  the  author  of  the  Teaching  of  the  Twelve 
Apostles,  who  makes  but  little  use  of  either  Testament,1  we 
come  to  Clement  of  Rome.  This  ancient  bishop  quotes 
not  only  from  the  book  of  Judith,  but  apparently  even  from 
such  books  as  the  Pseudo-Ezekiel  and  the  Assumption  of 
Moses.2  He  is  the  first  who  refers  to  the  Phoenix  as  a  sign 
of  the  Resurrection  ; 3  the  first  also  who  endows  Rahab  with 
the  gift  of  prophecy,  because  by  the  scarlet  cord  hung  out  of 
her  window  she  made  it  manifest  that  redemption  should  flow 
by  the  blood  of  the  Lord  to  all  them  that  believe  and  hope  in 
God.4  As  the  pictorial  fancy  of  a  preacher,  such  an  illustra¬ 
tion  would  be  harmless;  but  when  it  is  offered  as  the 
explanation  of  an  actual  prophecy  it  is  the  earliest  instance 
of  the  overstrained  Allegory,  which  was  afterwards  to  affect 
the  whole  life  of  Christian  exegesis.  We  see  the  reason  for 
this.  Allegory  was  already  a  familiar  method  among  the 


Se  qU°tel the  Old  Testament  thrice,  and  the  Apocrypha  four  times  ;  of 
Matthew  Testament  wnters  he  seems  only  to  have  been  familiar  with  St. 

2  c\Ylli  The  quotation  in  this  chapter  may  be  a  confused  reminiscence  of 
several  passages  (Ps.  cm  10,  11  ;  Jer.  iii.  4,  19  ;  Is.  i.  18  ;  Ez.  xviii.  30  &c  ) 
but  Clemens  of  Alexandria  (Paedag.  i.  10,  §  91)  quotes  it  from  “  Ezekiel  ” 
It  may  be  either  from  the  Alexandrian  poet  of  that  name  or  from  apocryphal 
additions i  to  Ezekiel.  I  hotius  says  that  Clement  quoted  from  several  apocry¬ 
phal  books  _  as  from  Scripture  {Bill.  Cod.  126).  Nac.  17,  4yd>  S4  eiJdrJs 
anb  tvOpas  is i  ascribed  to  Moses  and  may  be  from  the  Assumption  of  Moses 
though  not  for  the  reason  assigned  by  Hilgenfeld.  Bishop  Liglitfoot  thinks 
that  the  quotation  m  c.  23  comes  from  Eldad  and  Medad.  There  are  other 
apocryphal  quotations  m  c.  29  and  c.  46. 

(TT  AT  ^  9.C1®meiJslsnot  more  credulous  than  Tacitus  (Ann.  vi.  28)  or  Pliny 

Tnfn  L  i  Li  tPV  ai?  °in1^  s}iowmg  how  far  he  stands  below  the  level  of  St. 
John  and  St.  Paul.  And  it  should  be  observed  that  Pliny  and  Tacitus  ('ll 

express  some  doubts  on  the  matter;  and  (2)  are  not  elevated into  half-Tnspired 
authorities  ,  and  (3)  do  not  appeal  to  the  fable  in  support  of  a  religious  truth 
Perhaps  he  was  misled  by  the  Seventy  in  Ps.  xc.  12  -  Job  xxix. IS  or  vtt 

fifiSotTnotef0868  (Se6  HUgenfeId  Nov'  Test '  extr-  cm-  1  "■  a’ud  Bishop 

4  Bp.  ad  Cor.  12,  Spare,  ayarn]ro[,  ov  p.6vov  tv'kttls  aAAa  Trpotpvreltx  eV  rv 

Martyr  IpaT n  V same,!pecimenoof  e'Iegetic  Snosis  is  adopted  by  JustiA 
m  svl  i  p1!3  1  L  IIaer-  1V-  20  ;  Origen  in  Matt,  xxvii.  28  ;  Ambrose 

tn  ’  V  fj1!1?’  earm.  23;  Aug.  in  Ps.  Ixxxvi.  4  ;  and  many  others. 
See  the  note  of  Cotelenus  in  loc.  (i.  p.  155).  ^  mtia' 


Barnabas. 


1G7 


Jews,  and  just  as  the  Alexandrians  had  adopted  it  in  order 
to  find  in  Moses  an  anticipation  of  Greek  philosophy,  so  the 
Apostolic  Fathers,  before  the  full  formation  of  the  New 
Testament  Canon,  were  driven  to  it  in  order  to  make  the 
Old  Testament  an  immediate  witness  for  Christian  tru .  . 
The  Epistle  of  Clement  to  the  Corinthians  breathes  the  spirit 
of  a  sincere  and  beautiful  piety,  but  its  inferiority  to  even 
the  humblest  of  the  canonical  writings  shows  us  that  with  the 
close  of  the  sacred  Canon  the  whisper  of  divine  inspiration 
breathed  far  more  faintly  over  the  intellectual  powers  of  men. 

«  The  Bible,”  it  has  been  said,  “  is  not  like  a  city  of  modern 
Europe  which  subsides  through  suburban  gardens,  and  groves, 
and  mansions  into  the  open  country,  but  like  an  Eastern  City 
in  the  Desert  from  which  the  traveller  passes  by  a  single  step 
if  not  quite  “  into  a  barren  waste  ”  yet  into  poor  and  xnferti  e 

fields.  ,  , 

2.  The  Epistle  of  Babnabas  has  a  more  direct  bearing  on 

the  History  of  Interpretation.  It  presents  to  us  a  singular 

spectacle.  Intensely  anti- Judaic  in  tone,  yet  directly  Judaic 

in  method,  it  is  marked  by  no  coherent  and  intelligible  theory. 

The  writer,  though  full  of  satisfaction  respecting  his  own  gi  t 

of  insight,  was  no  thinker,  and  he  leaves  side  by  side  tilings 

finite  irreconcilable.  He  appears  to  suppose  that  part  of  the 

Old  Testament  was  meant  for  the  Jew's  and  part  for  tie 

Christians,  2  but  suggests  no  principle  by  which  one  part  is 

to  be  discriminated  from  the  other.  He  can  hardly  have 

been  ignorant  that  Christ  was  circumcised  and  yet  he  quotes 

various  passages  to  show  that  circumcision  was  not  meant 

to  be  of  the  flesh  and  that  the  Jews  were  led  into  it  by 

the  delusion  of  an  evil  angel.3  He  believes  that  Judaism 


nntPdtis  res  certas  reous  a  uuuus  bmuom,  “-h— - * — 7n— o  « . 

tionem  dicto,  quod  per  modes  videtis  iuuumeros  expositions  vanetate 

d0?uS,’  "JaJab'  4  14.  I  should  have  thought  it  hardly  worth  saying  that 

the  writef  of  this  Epistle  could  not  have  been  theApoMe: Barnabas,  ll  • 

TloYgJtiJcM  Magnl.  10)  calls  Judaism  r,  KaKf,  (ip*. 


16S 


Christian  Kabbalism . 


was  only  an  expression  of  God’s  will  when  it  is  explained 
by  Christian  gnosis  ;  and  that  God’s  intended  covenant  with 
the  J ews  had  been  dissolved  and  transferred  to  the  Christians 
at  the  moment  when  Moses  broke  the  tables  of  stone.  The 
only  glimmer  of  an  exegetic  principle  which  he  discloses  is  to 
find  throughout  the  Old  Testament  something  which  can 
be  referred  to  Christ  or  to  Christianity.1  Thus,  by  loosely 
mixing  up  two  separate  events,  he  says,  that  Abraham  cir¬ 
cumcised  his  318  servants,  and  then  he  explains  this  in  a 
kabbalistic  manner.  The  number,  he  says,  may  be  expressed 
by  the  letters  TIH  of  which  T  stands  for  the  cross 
and  IH  for  IHo-ofi?,  and  this  was  the  mystery  which 
Abraham  meant  to  imply.2  “  No  one,”  he  adds,  “  has 
been  admitted  by  me  to  a  more  excellent  piece  of  knowledge 
than  this.  But  I  know  that  ye  are  worthy.”  And  this 
mixture  of  two  kabbalistic  methods,3  purely  Jewish  and 
wholly  arbitrary,  is  eagerly  adopted  not  only  by  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  but  by  Tertullian,  Ambrose,  Augustine,  Paulinus, 
Gregory,  Isidore,  and  Bede.4  It  never  even  occurred  to  Bar¬ 
nabas  or  to  any  who  adopted  this  singular  specimen  of  ex¬ 
position  that  there  was  any  absurdity  in  attributing  to  a 
Chaldean  Emir  an  application  of  mystic  processes  and 
numerical  values  to  the  letters  of  an  alphabet  which  had  no 
existence  till  hundreds  of  years  after  he  had  returned  to  dust. 


Comp.  Ep.  ad  Diognet.  See  Baur,  Church  Hist.  i.  138  (E.T.) ;  Hilgenfeld, 
Die  apost.  Eater,  37  fg.  ;  Reuss,  Theol.  Chret.  ii. 

1  He  quotes  Is.  xlv.  1,  as  follows,  “  The  Lord  said  to  my  Christ  the  Lord  ” 
apparently  confusing  Kvpu  with  K vpicp,  Ep.  Barnab.  12.  The  only  direct  Hew 
Testament  quotations  in  Barnabas  (cc.  iv.  v.)  are  from  Matt.  xxii.  14;  ix. 
13.  He  quotes  once  from  4  Esdras  ;  four  times  from  Book  of  Enoch  ;  and 
frequently  from  the  Old  Testament.  The  writer,  had  he  been  the  Apostle 
Barnabas,  could  never  have  spoken  of  the  Twelve  as  vn ep  iraaav  apapriav 
avopwripovs.  c.  v.  (See  however  Diet,  of  Christian  Biog.  l.c.) 

2  Ep.  Barnab.  9.  In  this  he  is  followed  by  Clemens  Alex.  (Strom,  vi.  11  ;  §  84) ; 
Ambrose,  De  Fide,  i.  ;  Aug.  Quacst.  in  Jud.  37  ;  Hilary,  De  Synod.  86,  &c., 
and  apparently  by  Dr.  Pusey  ( Tract  89).  We  have  already  seen  the  inference 
drawn  by  the  Rabbis  from  the  fact  that  the  name  Eliezer  also  yields  the 
number  318.  Bereshith  Rabba,  c.  27.  Yet  the  Fathers  complain  of  Valentinian 
for  inferring  that  the  letters  IH  indicated  18  aeons.  (Epiphan.  Hacr.  ii.  14.) 
So  familiar  were  the  early  Christians  with  this  form  of  the  Qabbala  that 
Prudentius  says  we  must  fight  our  vices  with  318  servants,  i.e.  figurd  mystied  ; 
Proof .  in  Psychomachiam. 

3  Gematria,  see  ante,  p.  93  ;  Temoorah,  see  p.  102. 

4  See  Cotelerius  ad  loc. 


Barnabas. 


169 


It  is  in  Barnabas  also  that  we  find  the  earliest  of  the  many 
Christian  attempts  to  follow  Aristobulus  in  giving  a  mystic 
reason  for  the  laws  about  clean  and  unclean  meats.  Ibe 
hyaena,  he  says,  is  not  to  be  eaten,  to  show  that  men  must  not 
be  corrupters,  since  that  animal  annually  changes  its  sex ; 
nor  the  weasel,  because  it  conceives  with  the  mouth !  in 
explaining  the  sacrifice  of  the  Red  Heifer  as  a  type  of  Christ 
he  adds,  among  other  particulars  borrowed  from  the  Oral 
Law,  that  three  boys  had  to  sprinkle  the  people  with 
scarlet  wool  and  hyssop  bound  round  a  stick;  and  that  the 
calf  was  to  be  offered  by  men  of  perfect  wickedness  .  e 
men  are  explained  to  be  symbols  of  those  who  led  Christ  to 
death  and  then  (apparently)  of  the  Apostles  *  The  boys  that 
sprinkle  are  “  those  that  have  proclaimed  to.  us  the  remission  o 
sins,”  and  are  three  in  number  in  witness  of  Abraham,  Isaac 
and’ Jacob.  The  stick  is,  of  course,  made  a  type  of  the  cross 
and  in  some  unexplained  way  the  scarlet  wool  also;  and  the 
hyssop  is  to  show  that  the  days  of  Christ’s  kingdom  will  be 
evil.  All  these  things  he  says,  “  we  explain  as  the  Lord 
intended.’’ 3  The  comment  on  the  first  Psalm  is  equally 
fantastic  “  Blessed  is  the  man  who  hath  not  walked  in  the 

“ ./  *  «.  -  tw  “»-*'■*  '.‘T? 

polypus,  and  cuttle-fish,  which  may  not  be  eaten-go  m  dark¬ 
ness  to  the  depths  of  the  sea ;  “  and  hath  not  stood  m  the  icay 
of  sinners’,’  even  as  those  who  profess  to  fear  the  Lord  but 
o-o  astray  like  the  swine  ;  “  and  hath  not  sat  m  the  seat  of  the 
scomers,”  even  as  those  birds  that  lie  in  wait  for  prey.  This, 
he  says,  “  is  spiritual  knowledge.”  “  He  shall  be  as  a  tree 
planted  by  the  waters,’’  indicates  both  baptism  and  the  cross. 
“  His  leaf  also  shall  not  wither;’  means  that  “  every  word  pro¬ 
ceeds  out  of  your  mouth  in  faith  and  love  shall  tend  to 


in  many  oi  tub  ramwo.  i  ° 

tibilc  quam  ciborurn  exceptio  ?  anti  exj 
Marc.  v.  5  ;  Origen,  Horn,  in  Lent,  mat. 
1  ;  C.  Cels.  iv.  93. 

2  Ep.  Bamab.  c.  10.  The  passage  is 
this  seems  to  be  the  meaning. 


L  lUiilctu  ^  .  .  -i.  >>  /~i 

?  ”  and  explains  it  as  “  sapientia  m  occuito,  o. 
Levit.  makes  a  similar  remark,  and  He  Brine,  iv. 


is  extremely  obscure  and  confused  ;  but 


3  Id.  c.  10  ad  Jin. 


170 


Foolish  Fancies. 


bring  conversion  and  hope  to  many.”  Among  the  prophecies 
of  the  cross,  Barnabas  is  the  first  of  the  Fathers  to  quote  the 
apocryphal  verse,  “  And  the  Lord  saith,  When  a  tree  shall  be 
bent  down,  and  shall  again  arise,  and  when  blood  shall  flow 
out  of  wood.”  1  He  blesses  God  for  making  him  understand 
what  is  meant  by  “  the  land  flowing  with  milk  and  honey,” 
and  explains  it,  “  in  accordance  with  true  gnosis,”  to  mean, 
“ Trust  in  Jesus.”  For  the  “  land  ”  stands  for  “man,”  and 
“honey”  for  “faith;”  and  “milk”  for  “the word.” 2  Barnabas 
is  the  earliest  Christian  writer  who  based  the  notion  that  the 
world  was  to  last  six  thousand  years  upon  the  six  days  of 
creation,  and  the  Psalmist’s  expression,  “  One  day  is  with  the 
Lord  as  a  thousand  years.”  In  this  fantastic  inference  he  is 
followed  by  Irenaeus,  Hippolytus,  Lactantius,  Hilary,  Jerome, 
and  many  others.3 

But  while  no  sane  man  can  now  fail  to  see  that  such 
explanations  are  “  in  the  highest  degree  foolish  and  un¬ 
natural,”  we  must  not  set  them  down  to  the  special  in¬ 
competence  of  the  writer.  “The  Christian  Church,”  says 
Professor  Milligan,  “  has  afforded  too  many  examples  of  the 
adoption  of  the  most  perverted  principles  of  interpretation  by 
gifted  minds,  and  by  large  sections  of  her  members,  to  make 
folly  in  that  particular  direction  a  proof  of  general  mental 
weakness.”4  So  far  from  being  despised,,  the  Epistle  of 
Barnabas  was  regarded  as  pre-eminently  edifying,  and  it  was 
a  matter  of  doubt  for  a  time  whether  it  should  not  be 
admitted  into  the  sacred  canon.  Like  the  Pastor  of  Hermas, 
and  the  Epistles  of  Clement  and  Polycarp,  it  was  even  read 
in  many  churches  in  public  worship.5 

1  Id.  12  (2  Esdr.  v.  5).  2  Up.  Barn.  6. 

3  Up.  Barn.  15  (Gen.  ii.  2  ;  Ps.  xc.  4)  ;  Iren.  Haer.  v.  28,  29  ;  Hippo¬ 
lytus,  ap.  Phot.  cod.  cii.  ;  Lactant.  Instt.  vii.  25  ;  -Jer.  Up.  139,  &e.  See 

Cotelerius,  i.  44. 

4  Diet,  of  Christian  Antiquities,  s.v.  Barnabas. 

5  Into  the  theology  of  the  early  Fathers  I  do  not  enter.  Jerome  admits 
that  before  Arius  arose  like  a  demon  of  the  noonday,  “innocenter  quaedam 
et  minus  caute  locuti  sunt,  et  quae  non  possint  perversorum  liominum  calum- 
niam  declinare.  Apol.  adv.  Bufin.  ii.  Ho  one  would  blame  them  for 
this,  but  it  shows  that  they  cannot  be  regarded  as  authorities.  See  Petavius 
De  Trin.  i.  v.  7  ;  Newman,  Uss.  on  Development,  12 — 15. 


171 


The  Apologists. 

3.  HERMAS  furnishes  little  or  nothing  to  our  purpose,  and 
indeed  has  not  one  direct  quotation  from  either  the  Old  or  New 
Testament,  unless,  “  Many  be  called  but  few  chosen  ”  be  taken 
from  St.  Matthew.1  Nor  do  Polycarp  and  Ignatius  indulge 
in  direct  exegesis.2  Tatian  wrote  a  book  on  Scripture 
difficulties,3  consisting  of  comments  on  St.  Paul,  which  are  no 
longer  extant.  In  his  oration,  he  like  Barnabas  uses  the  Old 
Testament  as  the  source  of  all  knowledge.4  Atiienagoras 
also  held  the  mechanical  theory  of  inspiration  and  uses  the 
allegoric  method.5  He  says,  “  that  the  Spirit  uses  the  writers 
as  a  flute-player  might  blow  into  his  flute.”6  Theophilus 
of  Antioch  looked  to  the  Bible  even  for  physical  and 
scientific  teaching.  Thus  he  quotes  the  cry  of  Abel’s  blood 
from  the  ground  as  the  cause  why  blood  coagulates  when 
it  is  spilled  upon  the  earth.7  Like  many  of  the  Fathers, 
wherever  he  finds  Aoyo?  in  the  Old  Testament  he  at  once 
applies  the  passage  to  Christ,8  and  interprets  the  first 
words  of  Genesis  to  mean  that  the  Son  was  in  the  Father. 
His  exegesis  of  the  New  Testament  is  equally  arbitrary.  In 
John  i.  3,  “  without  Him  was  nothing  made  which  was  made ,” 
he  says,  that  “  nothing  ”  means  an  idol,  because  the  Apostle 
says,  “we  know  that  an  idol  is  nothing  in  the  world.”  We 
learn  from  St.  Jerome,  that  in  dealing  with  the  parable  of 
the  Unjust  Steward  he  explained  him  to  be  St.  Paul.9 

1  Matt.  xxii.  14,  in  Vision ,  ii.  2.  Tlie  same  quotation  occurs  in  Barnabas, 
c.  4,  and  something  like  it  in  4  Esdras.  The  scriptural  parallels  to  passages 
of  Hermas  are  given  by  Funk,  i.  575.  Origen  regarded  “the  shepherd”  as 
divinely  inspired  {Comm,  on  Rom.  x.  31),  but  Tertullian  despises  it  ( Do 
Pudic.  20). 

2  No  specially  distinctive  exegetic  data  are  to  be  derived  from  Papias,  or  the 
Ep.  to  Diognetus  (which  ignores  the  Old  Testament). 

3  Euseb.  H.  E.  v.  13,  TvpofiXnyaTuv  fiifSXiov. 

4  The  translator  of  the  Armenian  version  of  the  commentary  on  Tatian’s 

Diatessaron,  by  Ephraem  Syrus,  published  by  the  Mechitarist  Fathers  at  Venice, 
happily  proves  that  Tatian,  a  pupil  of  Justin,  used  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  as 
well  as  the  Synoptists.  5  Apol.  9. 

6  Qnacst.  ad  Autolyc.  ii.  9.  He  also  quotes  the  Sibylline  oracles  as  inspired 
{id.  ii.  9).  The  word  Tpias  first  occurs  in  this  book,  and  Trinitas  in  Tert. 
C.  Prax.  4.  Jerome  speaks  slightingly  of  his  commentaries,  but  does  not 
seem  to  feel  sure  of  their  genuineness.  That  on  the  Gospels  would  be  the 
earliest  extant  commentary  if  genuine.  R.  Simon,  Hist.  Crit.  der  Comment. 
p.  5.  7  Id.  ii.  29. 

8  Thus  in  Ps.  xlv.  1,  “  Eructavit  cor  meum  Verbum  bonum  i.e.  Christum.” 

u  Jer.  Ep.  ad  Algos.  151,  gu.  6.  Had  the  Key  (/cA eis)  of  Melito  ol  Sardis 


172 


Justin  Martyr. 


4.  For  the  New  Testament  Justin  Martyr  not  only  offers 
no  exegesis,1  but  seems  uneasy  unless  he  can  base  its  simplest 
statements  upon  prophecies  in  the  Old  Testament.  Indeed 
he  seems  to  regard  even  Christ  less  as  a  teacher  than  as  an 
interpreter  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  He  had  inspired.2 
Like  Philo,  he  supposes  that  the  Greek  philosophers  borrowed 
their  wisdom  from  Moses.3  He  believes  in  verbal  dictation, 
yet  quotes  the  Sibyl  and  Hystaspes  as  genuine  prophetic 
books.4  Pie  relies  exclusively  upon  the  skill  which  he 
supposed  himself  to  possess  as  an  interpreter ; 5  yet  he  was 
ignorant  of  Hebrew,6  and  accepted  the  fables  of  Pseudo- 
Aristeas  about  the  Septuagint.7  He  was  entirely  uncritical. 
He  appeals  to  the  so-called  Acts  of  Pilate.8  He  speaks  of  the 

and  Ills  commentary  on  the  Apocalypse  survived,  they  would  have  had  great 
exegetic  importance.  To  him  we  owe  the  first  Christian  canon  of  the  Old 
Testament. 

1  The  only  hook  of  the  New  Testament  which  he  mentions  by  name  is  the 
Revelation  of  St.  John  ( Dial.  81).  He  never  mentions  St.  Paul,  and  has  no 
certain  traces  of  the  Acts,  the  Catholic  Epistles,  or  the  Hebrews.  He  refers 
to  the  Gospels  as  “Memorials”  of  the  Apostles  {Dial.  103),  but  only  five  of 
his  references  agree  verbally  with  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke.  On  the  other 
hand,  though  he  does  not  quote  the  New  Testament  as  “Holy  Scripture,”  he 
seems  to  imply  the  inspiration  of  its  writers  {Apol.  i.  39,  50  ;  Dial.  119). 
For  his  quotations  see  Otto,  Corp.  Apolog.  ii.  579-592  ;  Bishop  Kaye,  p.  146. 

2  Apol.  i.  32.  After  quoting  the  words,  “Unless  ye  be  born  again  ye  shall 
not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God”  (John  iii.  5),  he  refers  also  to  Is.  i.  17 
{Apol.  i.  61).  It  is  true  that  this  may  partially  be  explained  by  the  exigencies 
of  his  controversy;  but  it  is  in  curious  contrast  to  the  Epistle  of  Polycarp, 
which  alludes  but  slightly  to  the  Old  Testament.  In  the  Epistle  of  Ignatius 
the  practice  of  relying  exclusively  on  the  Old  Testament  is  blamed  {Dp.  ad 
Philad.  8). 

3  Justin  is  however  most  unfavourable  to  the  Jewish  Law.  Dial.  19,  23, 
27,  &c. 

4  Apol,  i.  20,  44  ;  Cohort,  ad  Graecos,  §  37  (if  this  work  be  genuine).  Comp. 
Tert.  ad  Natt.  ii.  12,  &c. 

5  Dial.  56,  58.  Like  Clement  and  Barnabas  he  regards  the  typical  and 
allegoric  explanations  as  Gnosis  derived  from  spiritual  grace  (xapis),  Dial.  112. 

6  He  may  have  known  by  hearsay  the  strange  derivations  (?)  of  “Satan” 
(from  Sata,  “apostate,”  and  Nas,  “serpent”),  and  of  “Israel”  (“the  man 
conquering  power”).  Dial.  125.  See  Siegfried,  Philo,  269.  Justin  some¬ 
times  refers  quotations  to  wrong  authors  {Apol.  i.  35,  49,  51,  53),  and  some¬ 
times  quotes  the  same  passage  in  different  ways.  Apol.  i.  45  ;  Dial.  32,  33. 
Thirlby  talks  of  his  “  incrcdibilis  in  recitandis  scripturis  inconstantia,”  and 
“ incredibilis  in  scribendo  festinatio.” 

7  Cohort.  13.  Dial.  71.  He  appears  to  have  taken  an  inscription  to  the 
Sabine  god  Semo  Sancus  for  one  to  Simon  Magus,  Apol.  i.  26,  56.  In  Apol.  i. 
31,  he  says  that  Ptolemy  sent  messengers  to  Herod. 

8  Apol.  i.  35,  48.  The  name  “Acts  of  Pilate”  was  sometimes  given  to 
the  Gospel  of  Nicodemus.  and  the  passages  referred  to  by  Justin  are  to  bo 
found  in  that  apocryphal  book. 


His  Arbitrariness. 


173 


Law  and  circumcision  as  proofs  of  peculiar  evil  in  the  Jews,  and 
regards  God’s  approval  of  them  as  nothing  but  an  “accom¬ 
modation  ”  to  their  sins.1  He  relies  mainly  on  prophecy,  and 
charges  the  Jews  with  having  struck  four  passages  out  of  the 
Septuagint,  of  which  three  do  not  occur  in  any  manuscript, 
and  one  occurs  in  all.2  Following  in  the  footsteps  of  the 
Rabbis  he  denies  the  plainest  historical  facts.  He  explains 
the  apparent  justification  of  polygamy  in  the  Old  Testament 
by  some  great  mystery,  and  allegorises  the  stories  about 
Judah’s  immorality,  and  David’s  adultery,  and  Jacob’s  wives.3 
Thus,  like  Barnabas,  he  thinks  that  the  Old  Testament  was 
meant  mainly  for  Christians,4  and,  as  Middleton  sarcastically, 
but  hardly  with  exaggeration,  observes,  “  he  applied  all 
the  sticks  and  pieces  of  wood  in  the  Old  Testament  to 
the  cross.” 5  In  every  Old  Testament  Theophany  he  sees 
a  certain  Christopliany.  He  sometimes  presses  into  his 
allegory  facts  for  which  he  has  no  scriptural  authority,  as 
when  he  says  that  there  were  twelve  bells  on  the  High 
Priest’s  robe,  and  that  they  symbolised  the  Apostles ;  that 
Jesus  was  born  in  a  cave ; 6  that  the  ass  at  Bethphage  was 
found  tied  to  a  vine  ; 7  that  Christ,  as  a  carpenter,  made 
yokes  and  ploughs;  that  a  fire  was  kindled  in  Jordan  at  His 
baptism ;  that  His  feet  as  well  as  His  hands  were  nailed  to 
the  cross.8  He  even  adopts  such  mere  fables  as  that  not 
only  did  the  clothes  of  the  Israelites  not  grow  old  in  the 
desert,  but  those  of  the  younger  Israelites  grew  as  the}7 
grew.9  Justin’s  whole  system  of  interpretation  depends  on 

1  Dial.  27. 

2  Dial.  71-73.  One  of  these  is  attributed  bj7  Irenaeus  (iii.  20  ;  iv.  22)  first 

to  Isaiah,  then  to  Jeremiah.  He  unjustly  charges  with  bad  faith  the  render¬ 
ing  of  by  veavis  instead  of  n apdeuos  in  Is.  vii.  14  {Dial.  43),  and  says 

that  the  Jewish  corruption  of  the  Scriptures  was  a  worse  crime  than  even 
Moloch- worship.  Dial.  73. 

3  Dial.  86,  134,  141.  4  Dial.  57,  137,  140. 

8  See  Dial.  86-96.  The  rod  of  Moses,  the  pilled  wands  of  Jacob,  his  staff, 
his  ladder,  Judah’s  wand,  David’s  rod,  the  wood  which  Elisha  threw  into  the 
Jordan,  &c.,  &c. 

6  Is.  xxxiii.  16  ;  Dial ,  78. 

7  Gen.  xlix.  10  ;  Apol,  i.  32. 

8  See  Dial.  88,  103  ;  Apol,  l  35. 

9  Dial.  131.  aWa  /cal  t a  twv  veur epuv  avyijv^avt. 


174 


Irenaeus. 


the  assumption  that  the  Old  Testament  writers  always  spoke 
in  mysteries,  types,  and  symbols.1 2  When  we  read  the  passage 
in  which  Jacob  and  Noah  are  treated  as  types  of  Christ, 
we  sympathise  with  the  complaints  of  Trypho,  that  while 
God’s  words  were  sacred,  Justin’s  exegesis  of  them  was  purely 
artificial.3  We  may  concede  to  Celsus,  that  the  proof  of 
Christianity  must  rest  on  clearer  images  and  less  dubious 
indications  than  these.4  The  extent  to  which  Justin  was 
influenced  by  Jewish  methods  may  be  seen  by  his  application 
of  the  verse,  “  The  Lord  rained  upon  Sodom  brimstone  and  fire 
from  the  Lord  ”  (Gen.  xix.  24),  to  prove  the  divinity  of  Christ.5 
Philo  uses  analogous  modes  of  argument,  and  Philo  as  we 
know  was  an  object  of  Justin’s  admiration.6  From  him  Justin 
borrowed  the  theory  of  passive  ecstasy  as  the  condition  of 
prophetic  utterance,  and  so  far  from  feeling  any  misgiving 
about  his  exegetic  system,  he  attributes  it  to  the  possession  of 
a  special  grace.7 

5.  We  might  have  hoped  that  some  fragments  of  genuine 
Apostolic  wisdom  would  have  reached  Irenaeus  through 
Polycarp  or  his  aged  predecessor  Pothinus.8  But  whatever 
may  be  his  other  gifts  he  shows  no  special  wisdom  in  the 


1  irapaK^KaXvyyivws  iv  yvo'T'ipptcp. 

2  Dial.  134,  140. 

3  Dial.  79.  ra  ykv  rod  ©eov  ayia  ecrri v  at  5e  vysrepaL  e£riyf](Teis  Terexracr- 
Htvai.  For  instance  “Jacob  served  Laban  for  speckled  and  many-spotted 
sheep,  and  Christ  served  ....  for  the  various  and  many-formed  races  of 
mankind.  Leah  was  weak-eyed,  for  the  eyes  of  your  souls  are  weak.  Rachel 
stole  the  gods  of  Laban  and  we  have  lost  our  paternal  and  maternal  gods  ” 
{Dial.  134). 

4  Orig.  C.  Cels.  ii.  30.  rrapeppnf/e  de  6  KeA cros  tovto •  @e<^  de  nal  rod  0 eov 
vlbu  ovdels  e/c  t olovtwv  TrapaKovcryarur  ovd'  e£  ourcos  ayevv&v  reKyrjpLMV  avv- 
iar^aLV. 

5  Dial.  56.  A  similar  use  was  made  of  the  text  in  Iren.  Haer.  iii.  6  ;  Tert. 
Adv.  Praxean.  13  ;  Euseb.  Dem.  Evang.  v.  23  ;  Ambros.  De  Fide,  i.  2  (see 
Feuardent  in  loc.  Iren.)  and  see  infra.  The  Council  of  Sirmium  anathema¬ 
tised  any  one  who  understood  the  verse  differently.  Hilar.  De  Synod,  p.  373. 
A  similar  interpretation  was  given  to  2  Tim.  i.  18. 

6  Cohort,  ad  Graec.  9.  He  calls  him  and  Josephus  ol  (rocpdoraroi.  Renan  says 
of  him,  Justin  n’etait  un  grand  esprit ;  il  manquait  &  la  fois  de  philosophic 
et  de  la  critique  ;  son  exegese  surtout  passerait  aujourd’hui  pour  tres  defectu- 
euse  .  .  .  il  avait  cette  espece  de  credulite  mediocre  qui  permet  de  raisonner 
sensement  sur  des  premisses  pueriles  et  de  s’arreter  a  temps  de  fa^on  a  n’etre 
qu’a  moitie  absurde.” — L'Eglise  Chretienne ,  356. 

7  Cohort,  ad  Graec.  8. 

8  “  Constat  Poly  carpi  .  .  hunc  fuisse  discipulum.”  Jer.  Catal.  s.v. 


His  Views. 


1  *7  * 

l/o 


application  of  hermeneutic  methods.1  He,  too,  relied  simply  on 
the  Septuagint  and  regarded  all  who  preferred  other  readings 
as  vere  impudicos  et  audaces .2  He  quotes  the  Book  of  Baruch 
and  Bel  and  the  Dragon  as  genuine  Scripture.  He  constantly 
appeals  to  “  tradition;  ”  3  and  he  says  that  the  true  exposition 
of  Scripture  must  be  learnt  by  Presbyters  from  Bishops  who 
could  claim  apostolic  succession,  and  had  received  therewith 
a  sure  charism  of  truth.  Nevertheless,  his  own  exposition 
is  based  on  the  same  erroneous  principles  as  that  of  his  pre¬ 
decessors.  He  was  quite  able  to  expose  futile  and  fantastic 
exegesis  when  it  was  used  by  heretics,  and  he  compares  it  to 
twisting  ropes  of  sand.4  Nothing  can  be  more  admirable  than 
his  remarks  on  the  arbitrary  juxtaposition  of  irrelevant  and  per¬ 
verted  texts  which  in  all  ages  has  passed  for  scriptural  proof. 
He  compares  it  to  the  centos  made  of  Homeric  verses,5  and 
to  the  breaking  up  of  the  mosaic  of  a  king  in  order  to  work 
the  separate  fragments  into  the  mosaic  of  a  dog  or  fox.6  He 
insists  on  the  excellent  rule  that  enigmatic  passages  are  not 
to  be  explained  by  those  which  are  still  more  enigmatic,  but 
only  by  what  is  clear  and  plain.7  Unhappily,  however,  his 
own  exegesis  often  falls  far  short  of  his  theories.  Since  the 
Gnostics  used  apocryphal  gospels  he  tries  to  prove  that  there 
could  only  be  four  Gospels  because  there  are  four  quarters  of 


Haer.  iii.  21,  §  2.  He  is  the  earliest  Father  who  quotes  as  largely  from 
the  New  Testament  as  from  the  Old,  and  in  his  fourth  hook  he  proves  against 
Marcion  the  unity  of  the  two  covenants.  The  edition  of  Irenaeus  to  which  I 
refer  is  Massuet’s,  1710. 

2  For  his  quotations  see  Stieren,  i.  996-1005. 

3  7]  dvvapis  rqs  tt apadbaecas  /ha  /cal  rj  avr-q.  Haer.  i.  10,  §  2.  q  airb  rqs 

eKKXqalas  Kqpvaao^euq  aXqdeia,  i.  9,  §  5.  Comp.  v.  20,  §  2  ;  iii.  3,  §  1-4.  By 
tradition  he  sometimes  appears  to  mean  the  shorter  form  of  the  old  Roman 
creed  ;  but  he  also  appeals  to  tradition  for  special  facts  (see  Routh,  Eel.  Sacrae , 
42—65,  ed.  1814).  ’ 


4  Haer.  i.  8,  §  1,  roiavrqs  5e  rqs  vtt odeaeas  avrwu  ovaqs  V  ovre  ripo^rai 
'KVpvJar,  ovre  o  Kvpios  edida^eu  ovre  ’ AirSaroXoi  tt apedaiKav  rqv  irepl  rcov  oAcvv 
avxovai  TrXeiov  rwv  &AAwv  eyvwKevai,  aypdepcw  avayiyvdxrKovres,  ko.1  rb  dr] 
Xeyop.evov  &/x/iou  axoivia  nXeKeiv  eTrirqdevovres  (comp.  id.  ii.  10,  §  1). 

Haer.  i.  9,  §  4,  A  e*eis  /cal  ou6/xara  airopadqu  Ke'i/j.eva  (TvXXeyovres 
nera<p4poV(ri.  Comp.  Jer.  Ep.  liii.  §  7  “  Quasi  non  legerimus  Homerocentonas 
et  Virgiliocentonas  ! 

,  t  H(ier-  ^  y  8,  §  1,  ovirep  rpSirov  ei  r  is.  .  .  rreldoi  on  avrq  t )  crcnroa  rqs 
aXuireicos  idea  iKe'ivq  iarriv  q  tcaX)]  rod  PaaiAecos  elnwv.  He  gives  us  some 
specimens  of  \  alentinian  allegory,  and  preserves  a  comment  of  Ptolernaeus 
on  the  Prologue  of  St.  John  (§  5). 

7  Haer.  ii.  10,  §  2. 


176 


His  “ Tradition  ”  Valueless. 


the  world,  four  winds,  and  four  cherubic  forms.1  He  blames 
the  Gnostics  for  drawing  arguments  from  numbers,  letters,  and 
syllables,2 3  yet  even  in  a  matter  so  important  as  an  explana¬ 
tion  of  the  name  Jesus  he  adopts  the  Rabbinic  method  of 
Notar  ikon?  He  says  that  in  Hebrew  the  word  consists  of  two 
and  a  half  letters  and  implies  that  Jesus  is  Lord  of  Heaven 
and  earth.4  He  appeals  to  tradition  against  the  Gnostics, 
but  he  frequently  uses  the  same  methods,  of  which,  in  their 
case,  he  repudiates  the  application.5 6 

In  theology  Irenaeus  is  the  first  who,  if  he  be  rightly 
interpreted,  suggests  the  disastrous  view  that  Christ’s  ransom 
of  our  race  was  paid  to  Satan  G — a  notion  which  recurs  in 
the  writings  of  theologians  almost  unquestioned  till  the  days 
of  Anselm.  Even  as  regards  events  which  were  then  recent 
Irenaeus  is  a  most  unsafe  authority.  He  quotes  the  evidence 
of  “  elders  who  received  it  from  the  Apostles  ”  for  the  assertion 
that  our  Lord  at  His  death  was  more  than  forty  years  of  age 7 
— an  opinion  rejected  by  the  whole  Christian  world.  He 
makes  the  highly  questionable  statement  that  the  Apocalypse 
was  not  written  till  the  reign  of  Domitian.8  He  repeats  after 


1  Haer.  iii.  11,  §  8. 

2  Haer.  i.  3,  §  3  ;  ii.  24,  §§  1-6,  where  many  instances  are  given. 

3  See  supra ,  p.  101. 

4  Haer.  ii.  24,  §  2.  The  initials  of  the  word  may  be  made  by  Notarikon 
to  stand  for  Jehovah,  /Shamaim,  Fe-ha-arets.  Nothing  can  be  made  of 

the  present  reading,  “  Terra  autem  iternm  sura  user  dicitur.” 

6  Judg.  vi.  37  {Haer.  iii.  17,  §  3)  ;  Jon.  ii.  1  {Haer.  iii.  20,  §  1)  ;  Dan.  ii. 
34  {Haer.  iii.  21,  §  7),  referred  to  by  Lipsius  Diet,  of  Christian  Biogr.  ii.  270. 
In  each  instance  the  allegories  are  adopted  by  Augustine,  Jerome,  &c.  See 
Diestel,  pp.  56-60. 

6  Haer.  v.  1,  §  1.  Athanasius  furnishes  a  brilliant  exception  to  this  error. 
Archdeacon  Norris  understands  Irenaeus  differently  {Rudiments  of  Theology , 
p.  274),  but  Origen  and  many  others  certainly  held  this  view.  It  must  not 
be  forgotten  that  even  in  Theology  the  Fathers  are  not  always  safe  guides. 
Cardinal  Newman  remarks  that  out  of  some  thirty  authors  cited  by  Bishop 
Bull,  he  has  to  explain  nearly  twenty  {Ess  on  Development,  p.  158). 

7  Haer.  ii.  22,  §  5.  The  passage  is  quoted  by  Eusebius  H.  E.  iii.  25,  travres 
ol  TrpeafivTepoi  /xapTopovcri ,  ol  Kara  tt)v  ’ Acr'iav ,  'Iwavvy  .  .  .  (ru^ij8e^A7j/for€s 
7rapa8e8cvKevcu  [raura]  rbr  ’Iwdvi/yv,  and  for  other  mistakes  see  tii.  21,  §§  1-10. 
The  mistake  about  the  age  of  Jesus  is  the  more  strange  because  a  little  before 
he  had  pointed  out  the  Passovers  in  the  Gospels  to  disprove  the  “one-year” 
theory. 

8  In  Haer.  iii.  7,  §  1,  Irenaeus  makes  the  true  remark  that  St.  Paul  sometimes 
uses  hyperbola  “propter  veloeitatem  sermonum  suorurn  ;  ”  but  his  application  of 
the  figure  to  2  Cor.  iv.  2  is  unfortunate.  He  refers  to  a  book  of  his  own 
“On  the  peculiarities  of  the  style  of  St.  Paul.” 


I  Three  Schools.  177 

Polycarp  a  most  improbable  story  about  St.  John  and 
Cerinthus,  which  is  so  unworthy  of  the  Apostle  that  we  can 
only  hope  that  it  is  without  foundation.1  These  examples 
sufficiently  prove  that  if  we  are  to  judge  the  value  of  tradi¬ 
tion  even  from  such  early  writings  as  those  of  Irenseus  we 
> shall  find  that  neither  in  theology,  nor  in  exegesis,  nor  in  the 
simplest  matters  of  fact,  does  it  establish  any  claim  to  our 
reverent  acceptance.2 

II.  I  he  bathers  of  the  third  and  later  centuries  maybe 
divided  into  three  exegetical  schools.  Those  schools  are  the 
Literal  and  Realistic  as  represented  predominantly  by  Ter- 
tullian  ;  the  Allegorical,  of  which  Origenis  the  foremost  ex¬ 
ponent  ;  and  the  Historic  and  Grammatical,  which  flourished 
chiefly  in  Antioch,  and  of  which  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  was 
the  acknowledged  chief. 

1.  Tertullian,  like  other  Fathers,  always  speaks  of  Scrip¬ 
ture  as  uttered  by  God,  and  dictated  by  the  Holy  Ghost.3 
He  will  not  allow  to  \  alentinian  that  there  are  any  varying 
degrees  of  inspiration,  nor  to  Marcion  that  Paul’s  insight  was 
any  deeper  than  that  of  other  Apostles.  Like  the  Rabbis,  he 
placed  all  the  Scriptures  exactly  on  the  same  level.4  He  held 
that  they  contained  all  truth;  that  they  had  no  contradictory 
elements ;  and  that  their  cosmogony,  chronology,  anthropology, 
and  history,  were  infallibly  inspired.5  If  his  Hews  on  this 
question  are  to  be  regarded  as  authoritative  they  must 

1  st°ry  of  Cerinthus  and  the  Bath  (see  Epiphan.  Uacr.  Ixxviii.  14  ; 
Lampe,  1‘roleg.  p.  69).  i  have  pointed  out  elsewhere  the  grounds  on  which 
I  doubt  the  truth  of  the  story  {Early  Days  of  Christianity ,  i.  163). 

2  See,  for  instance,  the  wild  passage  about  the  Millennial  grapes,  which  he 
Tells  on  the  authority  of  the  weak  and  credulous  Papias,  who  professes  to 
have  heard  it  from  Polycarp  (Haer.  v.  33,  §  3  ;  Euseb.  H.  E.  iii.  ad  fin.  ; 
Routh,  AW.  Sacr.  p.  9).  When  such  authority  is  cited  for  such  a  Rabbinic 
absurdity,  we  cannot  estimate  very  highly  the  boasted  “tradition”  on  which 
Irenaeus  relies.  For  other  instances  see  Routh,  AW.  Sacrae ,  i.  pp.  46-68, 
95-101  (Rahab’s  cord,  iv  apxy  =  tv  A 6ycp,  Ac.). 

3  Apol.  18. 

D>  Pudic.  17,  “  Hanc  aeqnal itat-cm  Spiritus  Sancti  qui  observaverit,  ab 
Ipso  deducetur  in  sensus  ejus.  ”  He  makes  Ps.  i.  1  a  prophecy  of  Joseph  of 
Arimathaea  (De  spcctac.  3). 

J,r  Amm.  1,  2  ;  C.  Ilcmwg.  39,  40.  He  quotes  from  all  the  New  Testament 
except  2  let.,  James,  and  3  John,  and  held  that  the  Old  Testament  belongs 
specially  to  Christians  (Apol.  21).  He  knew  no  Hebrew,  and  relies  on  the 
“  inspiration  ”  of  the  Seventy  {Apol.  18). 


178 


Tertullian. 


be  equally  claimed  for  the  Book  of  Enoch,  and  “  the  Sibyl 
who  lies  not.” 1  He  mixes  up  different  quotations,  refers  to 
them  inaccurately,  and  relies  for  proof  on  verses  which  do 
not  occur  in  Scripture  at  all.2  He  thinks  that  Noah  may 
have  received  the  Book  of  Enoch  from  his  grandfather,  or 
that,  if  the  Book  was  lost  in  the  Deluge,  he  might  have 
restored  it  by  immediate  revelation,  as  Ezra  reproduced  the 
whole  Scriptures.3  How  can  such  opinions  be  appealed 
to  as  having  any  weight  ?  Before  a  scientific  exegesis  many 
of  Tertullian’s  statements,  so  far  from  being  a  part  of  the 
Christian  verity,  vanish  like  mist  before  the  sun.4  He 
protests  against  literalism,  except  when  time,  manner,  and 
circumstance  are  taken  into  consideration,  yet  he  believes 
in  a  corporeal  God,  and  accepts  literally  such  metaphors 
as  “  the  hand  of  God,”  and  the  “  drop  of  water  ”  in  the 
Parable  of  Dives,  and  thinks  that  everything  is  forbidden 
which  is  not  in  Scripture  expressly  permitted.5  He  rightly 
blames  the  Gnostics  for  their  abuse  of  allegory.6  Yet 
he  does  not  hesitate  to  allegorise  whenever  it  suits  him. 
Orthodoxy  was  accepted  as  a  sufficient  warrant  for  exegetic 
extravagance.  He  finds  a  symbol  of  the  Twelve  Apostles 
in  the  twelve  wells  of  Elim,  in  the  twelve  gems  on  the  High 
Priest’s  breast,  in  the  twelve  stones  taken  from  J ordan  ; 7  and 
he  thinks  that  literal  prohibitions  about  clean  and  unclean 
kinds  of  food  would  be  quite  contemptible.  The  eloquent, 
fiery,  uncompromising  African  practically  makes  Scripture  say 

1  De  Idol.  15  ;  De  Cult.  Fern.  i.  3  ;  ad  Natt.  ii.  12,  “Ilia  scilicet  Sibylla 
veri  vera  vates.  ” 

2  De  Cult.  Fern.  i.  2,  3.  See  Bishop  Kaye,  Writings  of  Tertullian,  p.  320 ; 
Porson,  Letters  to  Travis ,  p.  273.  Tertullian  is  too  reckless  a  controversialist 
to  be  accepted  as  authoritative  in  his  appeals  to  the  actual  autographs  of  the 
Apostles  ( Haer .  v.  30,  31),  or  the  census  of  Augustus  ( C .  Marc.  v.  7),  or  the 
supposed  letter  of  Tiberius  to  the  Senate  about  the  divinity  of  Christ  {Apol.  5), 
or  the  official  report  of  the  Crucifixion  by  Pilate  [Apol.  21). 

3  He  borrows  this  Jewish  fable  from  2  Esdras,  xiv.  21-44. 

4  See  Bohringer,  iii.  787-790. 

5  De  Cor.  Mit.  2  ;  De  Monogam.  4,  “  Negat  scriptura  quod  non  notat.” 

6  De  llestirr.  Carnis,  19,  “Non  omnia  sunt  imagines  sed  et  veritates  ;  nec 
omnia  umbrae  sed  et  corpora.”  Comp,  too  id.  ib.  20-33,  De  Fraescr.  39  ;  C. 
Hermog.  34,  kc. 

7  C.  Marc.  iv.  13.  See  too  De  Orat.  4,  C.  Frax.  7,  De  Baptismo,  iii.  ix.  and 
passim. 


His  Arrogance. 


170 


exactly  what  he  himself  chooses.  When,  like  Athenagoras,1 
he  condemns  second  marriage  as  “  specious  adultery,”  he  has 
no  manner  of  doubt  that  he  is  expressing  the  opinion  of  St. 
Paul,  though  St.  Paul  says  the  exact  opposite.2  If  in  spite  of 
St.  Paul’s  express  disclaimer  he  insists  on  the  resurrection  of 
the  identical  flesh,  he  asserts  that  St.  Paul  does  so  likewise.3 
At  one  time  Scripture  has  no  meaning  for  him  unless  it 
coincides  with  what  he  recognises  as  tradition,4  and  at  another 
time  tradition  is  valueless  if  it  does  not  correspond  with  his 
individual  convictions.  Thus  he  sometimes  speaks  the  lan¬ 
guage  of  Luther,  and  sometimes  that  of  the  Council  of 
Trent.  If  heretics  appeal  to  the  text,  “  Prove  all  things,  hold 
fast  that  which  is  good,”  he  loftily  replies  that  “  we”  have  no 
need  of  curiosity,  and  that  “  when  we  believe,  we  do  not 
desire  to  believe  anything  further.” 5  While  he  is  in  this 
mood  he  is  so  far  carried  away  by  his  own  sophistry  as  to 
speak  with  something  like  contempt  of  Biblical  studies,  as 
springing  from  curiosity,  and  tending  to  vainglory ; 6  and  by 
way  of  criticising  our  Lord’s  promise,  “  Seek  and  ye  shall 
find,”  he  implies  that  it  was  only  applicable  to  the  beginning 
of  His  teaching,  while  it  was  still  doubted  whether  He  was 
the  Christ.7  He  contemptuously  says  that  in  arguing  with 
heretics  it  is  useless  to  appeal  to  Scriptural  arguments,  in 
which  there  is  either  an  uncertain  victory,  or  none  at  all,  hut 
that  the  appeal  must  he  to  Apostolic  tradition.8  And  yet 

1  Atlienag.  Legal.  33,  b  bevrepos  ya/ios  evirpeTrr)S  ecrTi  yoix^'m,  comp.  Ol’ig. 
Horn,  in  Luc.  xvii.  ;  Theophil.  ad  Autolyc.  iii.  15  ;  Iren.  Haer.  iii.  17>  §.2. 

2  1  Tim.  v.  14  ;  De  Monogam.  8. 

8  De  llcsurr.  Carnis,  35,  47.  1  Cor.  xv.  37.  He  calls  those  who  disagree 

with  him  “lucifugae  isti  scripturarum.  ”  Comp.  Iren.  Haer.  v.  xii.  §  3. 

4  De  Pracscr.  4. 

5  De  Pracscr.  7,  “Nobis  curiositate  opus  non  est  post  Christum  Jesum, 
noc  inquisitione  post  evangelium.” 

6  De  P rawer.  14,  “Fides  in  regula  posita  est .  .  .  cedat  curiositas  fidei.”  17, 
“Quid  promovebis,  exercitatissime  Scripturarum,  cum  si  quid  defenderis 
negetur  ex  adverso,  si  quid*  negaveris  defendatur?”  The  sentiment  was 
finally  crystallised  in  the  “Tenendum  quod  semper,  quod  ubique,  quod  ab 
omnibus  creditum  est”  of  Vincentius  Lerinensis,  Coinmonitor,  i.  3. 

7  De  Pracscr.  8.  “  Whatever  answer  Tertullian  had  ready  for  other  objectors, 
these  he  could  silence  with  a  dashing  peremptory  interpretation  of  our  Lord’s 
words.  ...  1  find  it  hard  to  stifle  my  indignation  at  such  trifling  with  the 
Divine  precept.” — Maurice,  Ecrl.  Mist.  p.  279. 

8  “  Ego  sum  liaeres  apostolorum  ”  {De  Pracscr.  37).  This  is  the  argument 


180 


u 


Tradition .” 


when  tradition  no  longer  answers  him  according  to  his  own 
idols,  he  insists  as  forcibly  as  the  Reformers,  that  Christ 
calls  Himself  Truth,  not  Custom,1  and,  claiming  what  he  has 
so  fiercety  denied  to  others,  he  maintains  that  private  judgment 
is  a  natural  and  inalienable  right.2  The  most  inexorable  of 
traditionalists  when  he  is  arguing  against  heretics,  he  became 
in  his  arguments  against  heathens  the  first  clear  asserter  of 
the  Protestant  principle  of  freedom  of  faith  and  conscience 
as  an  inherent  attribute  of  the  conception  of  religion.3 

Insisting  on  the  verse,  “  God  hath  chosen  the  weak  things 
of  the  world  to  confound  the  strong,”  he  adopted  the  paradox, 
Credo  quia  absurdum ■  est,  and  the  wild  conclusion  that  the 
more  repugnant  to  sound  reason  a  statement  was,  it  ought 
so  much  the  more  to  be  deemed  worthy  of  God.4  And  alas  ! 
the  vehement  “  father  of  Latin  orthodoxy  ”  erred  from  the 
Catholic  dogma.  The  maintainer  of  tradition  became  the 
champion  of  a  schism.  The  malleus  haereticorum  died  a  heretic.5 

2.  Cyprian  is  the  only  other  prominent  writer  of  the  school 
of  Tertullian.  He  is  said  to  have  been  so  great  an  admirer 
of  his  writings,  that  when  he  asked  for  them  he  used  to 
say  Da  magistrum .6  But  he  was  a  man  of  less  impetuous 


of  the  whole  Be  Praescr.  Haereticorum,  and  Tertullian  states  it  more  for¬ 
mally  than  Irenaeus.  Praescriptio  means  legally,  an  argument  that  the  other 
side  ought  not  be  heard.  Tertullian  charges  heretics  with  having  a  different 
canon,  and  with  corrupting  and  mutilating  Scripture.  Heretics  might  cer¬ 
tainly  object  to  proofs  from  the  Book  of  Enoch  and  from  non-existent  texts  ; 
hut  to  a  very  large  extent  they  adopted  the  very  same  canon  as  Tertullian 
himself. 

1  “Christus  veritas  est,  non  consuetudo  ”  (Be  Virg.  vel.  1). 

2  “  Humani  juris  et  naturalis  potestatis  est  unicuique  quod  putaverit 

colligere  ;  sed  nec  religionis  est  cogere  religionem  quae  spoil te  suscipi  debeat 
non  vi  ”  (Ad  Heap.  2).  3  Baur,  K.  G-.  i.  428. 

4  On  the  deeply  interesting  personality  of  Tertullian,  see  Niebuhr,  And. 
Hist.  ii.  54;  Neander,  Ch.  Hist.  i.  683  ;  Newman,  Tracts,  p.  119;  Renan, 
Marc.  Aurel.  456,  “un  melange  inoui  de  talent,  de  faussete  d’esprit,  d’elo- 
quence,  et  de  mauvais  gout.”  “  Miserrimus  ego,”  he  says,  “semper  aeger 
ealoribus  impatientiae  ”  (Be  Patient.  1). 

5  “  Every  page  almost  of  Tertullian  would  furnish  terrible  instances  of 
the  irreverent  torturing  of  Scripture  to  his  own  purposes — of  a  resolute 
determination  that  it  shall  never  contradict  or  weaken  any  purpose  of 
his — all  the  while  that  he  professes  to  take  it  as  his  guide  and  judge.” 
Maurice,  Ecd.  Hist.  p.  334. 

6  Jer.  Catal.  s.v.  Tert.  A  certain  Taulus,  wTho  had  known  Cyprian,  told 
Jerome  “Nunquam  Cyprianum  absque  Tertulliani  lectione  unam  diem 
praeteriisse.” 


Cyprian.  181 

Genius,  and  all  that  is  distinctive  in  his  exegesis  is 
vitiated  by  the  fatal  fault  of  unreality.1  He  reads  an 
ecclesiastical  tradition  into  Scripture  as  it  pleases  him. 
If  he  wishes  to  prove  the  unity  of  the  Church  he  does 
so — in  a  manner  almost  ludicrous  in  its  want  of  cogency 
— from  the  Passover  commandment  “  In  one  house  shall 
it  be  eaten ;  ”  2  from  the  sentence,  “  My  dove,  my  un¬ 
defiled  is  one ;  ” 3  and  from  the  command  of  the  spies  to 
Rahab  to  collect  all  her  family  into  her  house.4  If  he  wants 
to  prove  against  the  Aquarians  that  wine  ought  to  be  used 
in  the  Eucharist,5  he  does  so  from  the  verse,  “lam  the  true 
vine;”  from  Noah’s  drunkenness,  which  he  treats  as  a  sign 
of  the  Passion ;  from  the  hospitality  of  Melchizedek ;  from 
the  blessing  on  Judah  ;  from  the  voice  of  wisdom  in  Proverbs  ; 
from  the  red  garments  of  the  avenger ; 6  and  from  the  ex¬ 
pression  “my  cup  runneth  over.”7  While  insisting  that 
everything  is  to  be  done  exactly  as  Christ  did  it,  he  yet 
demands  that  the  Holy  Communion  should  be  celebrated 
in  the  morning.  It  is  obvious  that  such  exegesis  is  wholly 
unscientific.  It  originates  only  in  the  necessity  for  con¬ 
fronting  Gnosticism  in  defence  of  beliefs  or  practices  fur  which 
there  was  no  direct  Scriptural  warrant.  It  was  forced  to 
maintain  the  view  of  the  Jewish  Rabbis,  revived  in  modern 
days  by  Dr.  Newman,  that  Scripture  is  inconclusive  without 
the  comment  of  tradition.8  Every  verse  is  interpreted  a 


1  The  Fathers  have  often  rendered  themselves  liable  to  the  very  same  com¬ 
plaints  which  they  make  against  the  heretics.  Tert.  Praescr.  38.  “Alius 
(Marcion)  manuscripturas,  alius  (Valentinus)  sensus  exposition  intervertit. 

.  Valentinus  .  .  .  materiam  ad  Scripturas  excogitavit  .  .  .  adjiciens 
dispositions  non  comparentiuin  rerum.”  Epiphan  Opp.  i.  396,  Kexpv^rai 
iraXata  kcl\  vea  8 iclOt}kt)  Kara  r bv  vovv  rbv  tdiov  y.eraTroiovp(voi.  Euseb.  II.  h. 
iv.  29,  TCU  f  vayye\lois  id'ius  (Reuss,  §  504). 

2  £x.  xii.  46.  3  Cant,  vl  9.  4  Josh.  ii.  18. 

6  Ep.  63,  ad  Caecil.  6  Is.  lxiii.  2.  7  Ps.  xxiii.  5. 

8  It  practically  said  “  However  you  may  interpret  Scripture,  Truth  is  with 

us.”  “  Quod  apud  niultos  unurn  invenitur,”  saysTertullian,  “non est  erratum 
sed  traditum.”  De  Praescr.  28.  See  this  subject  excellently  treated  by  Baur, 
Church  History ,  E.  T.  ii.  8-14.  This  side  of  Tertullian’s  and  Cyprian’s 
opinions  is  most  fully  developed  by  Cardinal  Newman’s  Tracts  for  the  Times , 

No.  85.  He  makes  the  remark,  which  would  indeed  be  disastrous  if  it  should 

be  proved,  that  “all  persons,  with  very  few  exceptions,  who  try  to  go  by  Scripture 

only  fall  away  from  the  Church  and  her  doctrines p.  2. 


182 


Cyprians  Method. 

priori.  If  we  are  warned  against  eating  and  drinking  the 
sacramental  elements  “unworthily,”1  that  is  supposed  to 
prove  the  necessity  of  formal  penance  and  absolution.2  Jf  our 
Lord  says,  “He  that  is  not  with  me  is  against  me,”  that 
is  explained  to  mean  that  all  who  are  not  Catholic  Epis¬ 
copalians  are  Antichrists.  Cyprian  has  no  glimpse  of  the 
relations  of  the  Law  to  the  Gospel.  Whatever  is  said  m 
the  Old  Testament  about  sacrificial  priests  is  applied  without 
hesitation  to  Christian  presbyters.  The  remark  ofOptatus 
to  Parmenian  might  be  applied  to  Cyprian,  "You  batter  the 
Law  to  such  purpose  that  wherever  you  find  the  word 
water,  there  you  conjure  out  of  it  some  sense  to  our  dis¬ 
advantage.”  “  He  has,”  says  Archbishop  Benson,  “  a  free  ideal 
scheme  before  him,  but  in  details  falls  from  it,  and  so  makes 
riddles  of  texts.”  3  His  exegesis  yields  any  result  that  is  re¬ 
quired,  and,  therefore,  yields  no  result  of  any  intrinsic  worth.4 
Yet,  like  Tertullian,  he  sets  tradition  aside  where  it  interferes 
with  his  own  opinions,  and  makes  remarks  which  Calvin 
himself  might  have  adopted — "  Tradition  without  truth  is 
only  antiquated  error,”  and  “  We  must  convince  by  reason,  not 
prescribe  by  tradition.”  5 

III.  It  was  in  the  great  catechetical  school  of  Alexandria, 
founded,  as  tradition  says,  by  St.  Mark,6  that  there  sprang 
up  the  chief  school  of  Christian  exegesis.  Its  object,  like 
that  of  Philo,  was  to  unite  philosophy  with  revelation,7  and 


1  1  Cor.  xi.  27. 

3 


2  Ep.  16,  §  2. 

Article  “  Cyprian  ”  in  Smith  and  Wace.  Archbishop  Benson  refers  to 
Cyprian’s  Comments  on  Acts ,  ii.  38  ;  Phil.  i.  18  (Epp.  73,  74,  75).  It  was  a 
common  complaint  of  the  Fathers  that  the  heretics  quoted  Scripture  m  their 
own  sense.  See  Tertullian:  “Valentinus  non  ad  matenam  Scnpturas,  Bed 
materiam  ad  Scripturas  excogitavit.  ”  De  Praescr.  Haer.  8,  Do  Annua,  18. 
But  do  not  the  Fathers  do  the  same  ? 

4  Bohringer,  ii.  1037.  „  ,  ,  e  ,  , 

5  “  Consuetudo  sine  veritate  vetustas  errons  est.  The  chief  exponent  of 
traditionalism  in  interpretation  is  St.  Vincent  ot  Lerins,  who  makes  e\eiy 
decision  turn  on  ecclesiasticae  intclligentiae  auctoritas.  bee  \  mcent.  uer.  0. 

Haer.  ii.  iv.  xli.  and^amm.  ...  ,  r 

«  Euseb.  H.  E.  v.  10;  vi.  3;  Jer.  Catal.  38;  Sozomen,  in.  15.  On  the 

school  of  Alexandria  see  the  treatises  of  Guericke,  Matter,  V  acherot,  and 

others  mentioned  in  the  Bibliography.  .  /TT  .  „  .  c  ox 

7  Clemens  (Strom,  i.  §  9 ;  vii.  §  32)  and  Ongen  {Horn,  m  Gen.  xiv.  §  3) 
believed  in  the  divine  origin  of  Greek  philosophy,  lor  their  views  of  Gnoais 
see  Strom,  vii.  10,  §  55  ;  Grig.  De  Princip.  Praef.  i.  §  3. 


183 


The  School  of  Alexandria. 

thus  to  use  the  borrowed  jewels  of  Egypt  to  adorn  the 
sanctuary  of  God.1  Hence,  Clemens  of  Alexandria  and  Origen 
furnish  the  direct  antithesis  to  Tertullian  and  Irenaeus. 
Clement  appeals  to  a  secret  tradition,  Tertullian  denies  its 
existence.2  The  Alexandrians  aimed  at  the  establishment  of 
Christian  Gnosticism,  and  many  of  their  philosophic  sym¬ 
pathies  have  such  an  affinity  with  those  of  the  leading 
Gnostics  that  Gnosticism  could  not  have  been  completely 
defeated  by  their  methods.3  Tertullian  and  Irenaeus,  on 
the  other  hand,  though  with  less  learning,  less  depth,  and  less 
power  repudiate  all  attempts  to  philosophise  in  matters  of 
simple  faith,  and  refuse  to  evaporate  into  speculative  ideas 
the  positive  truths  of  historical  Christianity.  Nothing  can  be 
more  unlike  the  spirit  of  the  Alexandrians  than  the  blunt 
question  of  Tertullian,  “  What  has  the  Church  to  do  with 
the  Academy  1  ”  4  Clement  gives  to  philosophy  a  divine 
origin,  Tertullian  thinks  it  incompatible  with  Christian 

faith.5 

1  The  first  teacher  of  the  school  who  rose  to  fame  was  the 
venerable  Pantaenus,  a  converted  Stoic,  of  whose  writings 
only  a  few  fragments  remain.6  He  was  succeeded  by  Clement 
OF  ALEXANDRIA  who,  believing  in  the  divine  origin  of  Greek 
philosophy,7  openly  propounded  the  principle  that  all  Scrip¬ 
ture  must  he  allegorically  understood.  The  motto  of  the 


1  Origen,  Frcigm.  Ep.  ad  Greg.  TJiaumat. 

2  See  Kaye’s  Clement,  362  ;  Tertullian,  31-234. 

O  -t  r  1  •  il  *  _ 4-  Pln+Am’cm  (lPlPJ 


verum 


3  Mosheim  thinks  that  Christian  Platonism  defeated  the  Gnostics  ; 
ipso  morbo  nocentius  longe  remedium  erat.”  {Deturbadd  per  rccentwres  Bodes. 

17*7bePiVaI8or?7,  “  Quid  ergo  Athenis  et  Eierosolymis  >  Quid  Acadcmiae  el 
Eceh-riacl  Nostra  imtitutio  ed  de  portion  Salomon*  qm  et  ,psc  trad.derat 
Dominum  in  simpliciUUe  cordis  esse  qnaerendum.  Vldennt  qui  Stourum  et 
Platonicum  et  dialeeticum  Christianismum  protulerunt.  ,  , 

TFor  Clement’s  views  on  the  relation  of  philosophy  to  Judaism  and  to 
Christianity  see  Strom,  i.  passim  ;  on  its  divine  origin,  see  id.  §5  91-100  , 
on  Us  educational  function,  §§  1-58.  He  holds  that  Greek  philosophy  was 
borrowed  from  what  he  calls  “the  philosophy  of  Moses,  id  §§  66  90 
167-179  Comp.  vi.  42,  44,  47,159.  Tertullian  on  the  other  hand  ealled 

£££  i  ***  36.  He  must  hare 

favoured  the  allegoric  method,  for  he  applied  to  the  Church  what  ^  wnUen 
Paradise.  See  Redepcuning,  Origcnes,  l  63.  Jerome  says,  Ma0is  m> 

ecclesiis  profuit”  .  . 

7  Strom.  L  §  23  ;  viL  §  6  ;  Origen,  Horn,  in  Gen.  xiv. 


184 


Clement  of  Alexandria. 

school  was — “  Unless  ye  believe  ye  will  not  understand.”1 
By  way  of  proving  this  proposition  he  fell  into  the 
prevalent  error  of  giving  an  universal  application  to  isolated 
phrases.2  He  interpreted  of  a  whole  literature  what  was 
originally  intended  of  a  single  psalm  or  a  single  circumstance.3 
The  reasons  which  he  assigns  for  the  cryptic  character 
of  Holy  Writ  are  the  antiquity  of  parabolic  teaching,  the 
desire  to  stimulate  research,  and  the  assertion  that  the 
hidden  senses  of  Scripture  are  not  fitted  for  all,  but  only 
for  those  perfect  Christians  who  are  marked  out  by  election 
for  the  true  Gnosis.4  He  does  not  deny  the  literal  sense, 
but  thinks  that  it  only  furnishes  an  elementary  faith.  The 
literal  sense  is  the  milk  of  the  word,  but  the  esoteric  vision 
furnishes  strong  meat.5  “To  the  Gnostics,”  he  says  (i.e.  to 
philosophic  Christians),  “  the  Scriptures  have  conceived.” 6 
Too  often,  alas,  to  such  “  Gnostics  ”  they  had  only,  in  the 
words  of  Isaiah,  “  brought  forth  wind.” 

His  attitude  towards  the  inspired  writings  is  that  of  his 
age.  He  makes  room  for  legends  even  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment  story.7  His  quotations  are  loose  and  paraphrastic,  and 
are  sometimes  attributed  to  a  wrong  author.8  He  quotes 
verses  which  have  no  existence.9  He  refers  to  Apocryphal 


1  Is.  vii.  9  ;  LXX.  ia v  y.)]  viaTevcrqre  ov8e  yyj  crwrire.  The  verse  is  mis¬ 
translated  and  misapplied.  On  the  Alexandrian  contrast  between  “faith” 
and  “knowledge,”  see  Strom,  v.  §§  1-13  ;  and  for  the  exegetic  principles  of 
Clement,  specially  Strom,  i.  §  32  ;  v.  §  20 ;  vi.  §§  80-83,  127-132. 

2  Strom,  i.  §  32. 

3  For  these  scriptural  proofs — which  have  not  a  shadow  of  validity — from 
Ps.  Lxxviii.  2  ;  Matt.  x.  27  ;  Markiv.  34  ;  1  Cor.  ii.  6,  see  Strom,  v.  §§  25,  26  ; 
vi.  §§  115-118.  So  as  Neander  says  (Ch.  Hist.  ii.  265)  “many  texts  from 
Luther’s  translation  of  the  Bible  became  current  proof-passages  for  propositions 
relating  to  Christian  faith  or  practice,  although  this  application  of  them  was 
u'holly  inconsistent  with  the  sense  which  they  had  in  the  original .” 

4  Strom,  i.  §  7  ;  v.  §§  16,  21  ;  vi.  §§  1,  30  ;  vii.  §  35.  See  the  passages 
quoted  in  Gieseler,  i.  233. 

5  In  order  to  get  rid  of  the  objection  that  “  knowledge  puffeth  up  ”  (1  Cor. 
viii.  1),  Clement  gives  to  (pvaiol  the  sense  of  “  causes  men  to  think  great  and 
true  thoughts”  !  Strom,  vii  §  104. 

6  Strom,  vii.  §  94.  The  distinction  between  the  philosophic  Christian  (the 
“true  Gnostic”)  and  the  ordinary  Christian  runs  all  through  the  Stroviateis , 
see  vi.  §§  26-109  ;  vii.  §§  55,  57-95. 

7  The  story  about  Salome  is  from  “  the  Gospel  to  the  Egyptians.”  Strom. 
iil  §  63. 

8  See  Kaye,  p.  407. 

9  Strom,  ii.  §  45  ;  vii.  §  94. 


“  Tradition .” 


185 


writings  as  though  they  were  inspired.1  He  attributes  the 
book  of  Wisdom  to  Solomon,  and  the  Book  of  Baruch  to 
Jeremiah.  He  quotes  even  the  “  Revelation  ”  and  “  Preach¬ 
ing  ”  of  Peter,2  as  well  as  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas 3  and  the 
«  Teaching  of  ’  the  Twelve  Apostles,”  as  having  Scriptural 
authority.0  He  believes  in  the  miraculous  inspiration  of 
the  Septuagint,4  the  Sibyl,  and  Hystaspes,5  and  he  calls 

Plato  “  all  but  an  evangelical  prophet.” 6 

The  characteristic  features  of  his  system  are  as  follows : 

a  He  believes  that  esoteric  teaching  was  communicated  by 
Christ,  not  in  writing,  hut  orally  after  the  Resurrection  to 
James,  Peter,  and  John,  who  transmitted  it  to  the  seventy 
disciples.7  Pearls,  he  says,  are  not  to  he  thrown  before  swine. 
Some  things  were,  therefore,  only  said  and  done,  not  because 
they  were  right  or  true  in  the  abstract,  but  only  tear 

oi/COVOfJLLCLV .8  _  . 

1.  He  claims  for  his  “  ecclesiastical  gnosis  ”  the  authority 
of  a  tradition,  to  which  he  repeatedly  appeals  against  the 
perverted  interpretations  of  heretics,9  and  which  he  calls 
« the  Apostolic  orthodoxy,”  “  the  evangelical  canon,”  “the 
glorious  and  venerable  rule  of  tradition.”  10  This,  he  says,  is 
°  the  key  ”  of  the  true  Gnostics,  while  the  heretics  have  only 
an  “  anti-key.” 11  But  this  tradition  seems,  on  examination, 
to  be  nothing  more  than  the  method  of  Pantaenus  and  other 


1  See  Lardner,  Credibility,  ii.  c.  22,  §  13. 

y,  sttrnm  i  §  182  :  vi.  §§  39,  48,  128.  TT  i 

»  Strom,  ii.  §  31.  He  also 'quotes  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews. 

Strom,  ii.  §  45. 

:  ZTit  IVrAll'lS  ;  Strom,  i.  §108  ;  v.  §  13  ,  vi.  §  43.  In  Strom. 

vi  §  4  9  St  Paul  is  made  to  quote  the  Sibyl  and  Hjsi.ispis,  P*  *, 

«  Strom,  i.  §  10,  'O  U\arwv  yov6vovXi  irpo^reiW  crcorypiov  oiKOVo^iav.^ 

6  ii  'EfipalJ  <bi\6(To<fjos  Strom  i.  §150,  rt  yap 

..  ~  i  y  '  Paj  <l  iii  is  54  <3  iravTCL  &pi(xros  HXaruv  .  .  oiov  deo<popovy.evos. 
bowy.5 Strom,  i.  §§  28-32,  where  Heatheu  Philosophy  is  treated  as  a  source 

°^7S0iem.  Hypotyp.  ap.  Euseb.  H.K  ii.  h  §  2;  Strom,  i  §§  11,  96  ,  vi. 
kr  at  •  vii  §5  94,  10/  «  Oriir.  C,  C els,  vi.  s  ^ 

“ «  j’{  >  instances  not  very  appositely  St.  Paul’s  circumcision  of  1  nnotliy.  s  ec 
KayVs  IPrS  n/  Tcrt.  pT 399.  His  Scriptural  references  are  sometimes 

vii.  §  97.  For  reference  to  the  «  canon  of  tradition,”  see  Strom. 

t  §§  11,  88,  179  ;  vii.  §  94.  UypoL  m  (up.  tuseb.  U.E  ■ 1,  §  2)  ^ 

10  See  lvaye,  p.  3bo. 


186  Allegoric  Fancies. 

Alexandrians.  At  any  rate,  the  results  to  which  it  leads  are, 
to  quote  Canon  Westcott’s  phrase,  often  so  “  visionary  and 
puerile  ”  that  we  can  attach  to  them  but  little  importance. 
Different  interpretations  are  sometimes  furnished  of  the 
same  passage.  His  explanations  of  the  story  of  Abraham  and 
Sarah  are  in  principle  identical  with  Philo’s,  as  are  his  views 
concerning  the  symbolism  of  the  Tabernacle.1  Abraham’s 
lifting  up  his  eyes  on  the  third  day  and  seeing  the  place 
which  God  had  appointed,2  is  explained  to  mean  that  on 
the  first  day  he  attained  to  the  sight  of  what  is  fair,  on 
the  second  to  the  best  desires  of  the  soul,  and  on  the  third 
to  an  insight  into  spiritual  things ;  or  else  the  three  days 
are  interpreted  of  the  mystery  of  the  seal  of  baptism, 
whereby  man  believes  on  God,  who,  as  Plato  says,  is  “the 
place  of  ideas.”  Joseph’s  coat  is  made  a  ^yihbol  of  various 
knowledge  which  his  brethren  envied.  In  Ex.  xvi.  36  we  are 
told  that  “  an  omer  is  the  tenth  part  of  an  ephah,”  or,  as  it 
is  in  the  LXX.,  “  of  the  three  measures  ”  {too v  rpiwv  puerpcov), 
and  these  three  measures  are  said  to  be  the  three  criteria  of 
sensation,  speech,  and  understanding.  The  “clean  beasts” 
imply  the  orthodox  who  are  steadfast  and  meditative,  since 
rumination  stands  for  thought,  and  a  divided  hoof  implies 
stability.  The  forbidden  animals,  which  ruminate  but  do 
not  divide  the  hoof,  stand  for  the  Jews;  those  which  divide 
the  hoof  but  do  not  ruminate  are  heretics;  those  who  do 
neither  are  the  impure.3  Clement  even  allegorises  the 
Decalogue,  and  in  the  New  Testament  treats  the  miracles 
exactly  as  if  they  were  parables.  Thus,  in  the  feeding  of  the 
five  thousand,  he  says  that  “  the  barley  loaves  ”  indicate  the 
preparation  of  the  Jews  for  divine  knowledge,  because  barley 
ripens  earlier  than  wheat ;  and  “  the  fishes  ”  the  preparation 
of  the  Gentiles  by  Greek  philosophy,  because  philosophy  was 
born  amid  the  waves  of  heathendom,  and  given  to  those  who 

1  See  Itosenmuller,  Hist.  Intcrp.  i.  219.  Kaye,  pp.  374-403. 

2  Gen.  xxii.  8. 

3  Strom,  y.  §  52  ;  vii.  §  109.  Comp.  Iren.  Haer.  v.  8.  See  Kaye,  pp.  220, 
380.  In  Is.  xi.  7,  Clement  makes  “the  ox”  stand  for  the  Jews,  and  “the 
hear  ”  for  the  Gentiles.  For  other  untenable  interpretations  see  Strom,  v.  vi. 
passim. 


“  Accommodation 


187 


lie  on.  the  ground.  Or  one  of  the  fishes  may  stand,  he  says, 
for  encyclical  instruction,  and  the  others  for  philosophy,  which 
is  taught  later  on,  the  two  being  subsequently  collected 
together  by  the  word  of  the  Lord  !  But,  as  Bishop  Kaye  says, 

«  to  follow  Clement  through  all  his  allegorical  interpretations 
would  be  a  wearisome  and  unprofitable  labour.” 1  The  worst 
evil  of  the  system  was  that  it  led  the  Alexandrian  teachers 
into  very  unsound  views  about  “  accommodation  and 
“  esoteric  teaching,”  of  which  the  first  became  fatally  akin  to 
tampering  with  the  truth,  and  the  other  was  apt  to  deaden 

brotherly  love,  and  to  inflate  a  spiritual  pride. 

IV.  Of  Origen,  the  greatest  master  of  this  school,  it 
would  he  impossible  to  speak  in  any  terms  hut  those  of  the 
highest  admiration  and  respect.3  While  living  he  was  the 
victim  of  episcopal  jealousy  and  party  intrigue  and  his  very 
memory  has  been  for  many  ages  the  butt  for  ignorant  malice 
and  brutal  calumny.  Envy  never  pardons.4  History  itself 
has  been  falsified,  and  the  decrees  of  Councils  misrepresented, 
to  vilify  one  who  was  equally  great  in  the  value  of  his 
labours  and  in  the  sanctity  of  his  life.  There  is  no  man  to 
whom  the  Church  of  Christ  owes  a  more  awful  debt  of 
reparation  than  to  this  incomparable  saint,  who,  though  his 
memory  has  been  branded  and  his  salvation  denied,  rendeied 

1  On  Clement  see,  besides  the  books  here  quoted,  Bishop  Reinken’s  Be 
Clemente  Presbytcro  AlexandHno,  1851  ;  and  Abbe  Freppel,  Clement  d  Alex- 

aWi  This  Ts  the  least  pleasing  aspect  of  the  teaching  of  the  school  of  Alex¬ 
andria.  Clemens  is  the  first  Father  who  uses  oWovoyia  m  the  sense  ot 
“accommodation.”  “ Condescension  ”  (< rvyuaTapaens )  occurs  m  Chrys.  Horn, 
in  Tit.  iii.  The  Fathers  attribute  it  not  only  to  St.  Paul,  but  even  to  our 
Lord,  of  which  the  worst  instance  is  in  Basil’s  remark  on  Matt.  xxiv.  37, 
touts  Sio  Trpoa-Troi'nrris  ayvolas  olKovoyel  (Bp.  84).  The  doctrine  was  first 
borrowed  from  Plato  (Be  Pep.  iii. )  by  Philo  (Quod  Beus  sit  immut. ).  ^  Clement 
approves  of  circuitous  modes  of  stating  truth  (avy-n epi<pep6p*voi,  KaTacrvyirepi- 
(bopav).  Origen  says  that  a  man  “who  is  obliged  to  speak  falsely  (!)  should  be 
very  careful  ”  (Orig.  Strom,  vi. ;  ap.  Jer.  Apol.  I.  in  Pujin.  18).  lor  a  practical 
instance  see  C.  CeU.  iii.  159.  On  the  esoteric  doctrines  of  these  1  athers  see 
r  Cels  i  7  'Be  Prino.  1,  vi.  §  1  ;  Horn,  in  Lev.  ix.  Synesius  adopted  these 
vkwfb  the  full  (Kp.  105)  See  Schrockh,  K.G.  x.  380-395;  Daille, 

Be  Usu  Patrum,  vi.  ,  ..  ,  ,  .  .  .  , 

3  Jerome,  who  so  often  spoke  bitterly  of  him,  called  him  an  Anan,  and 

argued  that  he  approved  of  telling  lies,  talks  of  his  “immortale  ingenium. 
Catal.s.  v.  Origen. 

*  Jeremie,  Hist .  of  Second  and  Thivd  Cent .  p.  ^ 


188 


Greatness  of  Origen. 


to  her  greater  services  than  all  her  other  teachers — from  whom 
in  fact  those  teachers  for  many  centuries  derived  an  immense 
part  of  their  knowledge  and  their  thoughts — but  whom 
her  liierarchal  representatives  cruelly  persecuted  while  he  was 
living,  and  virulently  anathematised  after  he  was  dead.  By 
his  Tetrapla  and  Hexapla  he  became  the  founder  of  ail 
textual  criticism ;  by  his  Homilies  he  fixed  the  type  of  a 
popular  exposition ;  his  Scholia  were  the  earliest  specimens 
of  marginal  explanations ;  his  Commentaries  furnished  the 
Church  with  her  first  continuous  exegesis  ;  his  book  on  “  First 
Principles”  was  “the  earliest  attempt  at  a  systematic  view  of 
the  Christian  Faith ;  ”  1  his  knowledge  of  the  Bible,  and  his 
contributions  to  its  interpretation  were  absolutely  unrivalled. 
His  labours  mark  an  epoch.  Like  the  influence  of  Socrates 
in  Greek  Philosophy,  so  the  influence  of  Origen  in  Church 
History  is  the  watershed  of  multitudes  of  different  streams 
of  thought.  “  Certainly,”  says  Mosheim,  “  if  any  man  deserves 
to  stand  first  in  the  catalogue  of  saints  and  martyrs,  and  to 
be  annually  held  up  as  an  example  to  Christians,  this  is  the 
man ;  for  except  the  Apostles  of  Jesus  Christ  and  their 
companions,  I  know  of  no  one  among  all  those  ennobled  and 
honoured  as  saints  who  excelled  Origen  in  virtue  and  holi¬ 
ness.”  “  In  spite  of  his  very  patent  faults,”  says  Bishop 
Lightfoot,  “  which  it  costs  nothing  to  denounce,  a  very  con¬ 
siderable  part  of  what  is  valuable  in  subsequent  commentaries, 
whether  ancient  or  modern,  is  due  to  him.  A  deep  thinker, 
an  accurate  grammarian,  a  most  laborious  worker,  and  a  most 
earnest  Christian,  he  not  only  laid  the  foundation,  but,  to  a  very 
great  extent,  built  up  the  fabric  of  Biblical  interpretation.”  2 

1  See  Huet,  Origeniana ,  iii.  2,  p.  238  ;  Westcott  in  Contemp.  Rev.  vol. 
xxxv.  p.  337.  His  Scholia  (or  Xr^etcScreis)  are  mostly  lost  ;  his  Homilies  are, 
for  the  most  part,  preserved  in  the  Latin  translations  of  Jerome  and  Rufinus, 
which,  unhappily,  cannot  be  relied  on,  since  the  translators  thought  lit  to 
modify  and  tamper  with  them.  They  fill  three  folios,  though  much  is  lost. 
His  Commentaries  ( Togoi )  extended  over  the  whole  Old  Testament,  except 
Kutli,  Esther,  and  Ecclesiastes;  and  the  whole  New  Testament  except  Mark, 
1  and  2  Cor.,  1  and  2  Pet.,  1,  2  and  3  John,  James,  Jude,  and  the  Apocalypse. 
See  llufin.  Invect.  in  Ilieron.  ii. 

2  On  Galatians,  p.  217.  For  the  use  made  of  Origen  by  Hilary  and  Vic- 
torinus,  see  Jer.  Ep.  41,  ad  Pammach.  Some  of  his  commentaries  (c.g.  that 
on  1  Cor.)  are  much  freer  from  allegory  than  others. 


Survival  of  Error. 


ISO 


It  is  a  circumstance  due  to  I  know  not  what  Nemesis,  but 
certainly  strange  and  sad,  that  Origen's  name  as  a  thinker  is 
popularly  associated  with  a  complete  misunderstanding  of  his 
most  dubious  speculations,  and  that  his  name  as  an  exegete 
is  chiefly  remembered  in  connection  with  the  least  solid  and 
the  most  erroneous  of  his  methods.1  His  errors  were 
canonised,  his  name  was  condemned.  In  the  paragraph  from 
which  I  have  just  quoted,  the  Bishop  of  Durham  expresses 
his  regret  that  he  has  chiefly  to  allude  to  Origen  by  way  of 
correction,  “  because  his  opinion  has  rarely  been  recorded  by 
later  writers  except  where  his  authority  was  needed  to 
sanction  some  false  or  questionable  interpretation.”  But  the 
impression  thus  produced,  he  adds,  is  most  unjust  to  his 
reputation,  since  “  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  all  subsequent 
writers  are,  directly  or  indirectly,  indebted  to  him  to  a  very 
large  extent.”  His  Commentaries  were  in  fact  the  common 
mine  in  which  all  his  successors  dug ;  and  it  must  not  be 
forgotten  that  he  was  the  father  of  grammatical  as  well  as 
of  allegoric  exegesis.  Compilers  seized  on  his  fanciful  per¬ 
versions  ;  they  neglected  his  noblest  thoughts.2  Hilary, 
Ambrose,  Jerome,  Augustine,  the  Latin  fathers  who  had  the 
profoundest  influence  on  the  Church  of  the  West,  perpetuated 
the  least  tenable  parts  of  his  method.  The  School  of  Antioch, 
no  less  than  that  of  Alexandria,  owed  its  origin  to  the 
mighty  impulse  which  the  Christian  world  received  from 
his  labours,  but  unhappily  for  the  cause  of  sound  learning 
the  School  of  Antioch  was  crushed  by  charges  of  heresy,  and 
the  allegorical  tendencies  of  the  School  of  Alexandria  prevailed. 

Origen  shared  many  of  the  views  about  Scripture  which 
we  have  already  noticed  in  writers  like  Philo,  Barnabas, 
Justin,  and  Clement  of  Alexandria.  He  believed  in  the 
inspiration  of  the  Septuagint,  and  saw  hidden  mysteries  in  its 
solecisms  and  errors.3  He  appeals  to  Apocryphal  books 

1  See  for  full  information  Iluet,  Origeniana,  passim. 

2  See  Westcott,  Gospel  of  St.  John  ( Speaker's  Commentary ,  p.  xcv.). 

3  Philokal.  p.  33  ;  Comm,  in  Oseam  (Iluet,  i.  p.  201).  Like  Plato  he  often 
contrasts  t b  fryriv,  rb  au'/xariKoy  k.t.\.  with  rb  airoppyrbv,  y  aWyyop'ia,  y 
avaywyy,  iryeujuariKf]  Siyyyats,  dfwp'ia  k.t.\. 


190 


False  Vieics. 


as  authoritative  and  inspired.  He  is  too  much  given 
to  hortatory  and  dogmatic  divergences.  He  shows  clear 
traces  of  methods  traditionally  received  both  from  the 
Palestinian  Rabbis  and  the  Alexandrian  theosophists.1  He 
admits  that  the  New  Testament  is  not  written  in  the  best 
Greek,  but  says  that  this  is  unimportant,  because  the  revela¬ 
tion  consists  not  in  the  words  but  in  the  things  revealed. 
Yet,  he  held  in  its  strongest  form  the  theory  of  verbal 
inspiration.  Not  one  iota,  he  said,  of  Scripture  is  empty  : 
and  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  his  Scripture  included  the 
Apocrypha.  His  proof  of  this  statement  is  the  purely  verbal 
application  of  isolated  sentences  which  bear  no  relation  to  the 
matter  on  hand.  “  God,”  he  says,  “  gave  the  command  Thou 
shalt  not  appear  before  me  empty,  and  therefore  He  cannot 
speak  anything  which  is  empty  ”  ! 2  The  infinite  confusions 
involved  in  such  a  proof  show  the  chaotic  condition  of 
thought  which  was  prevalent  on  the  question  of  Scripture 
Inspiration. 

The  errors  of  the  exegesis  which  Origen  tended  to 
establish  for  more  than  a  thousand  years  had  their  root  in 
the  assumption  that  the  Bible  is  throughout  homogeneous 
and  in  every  particular  supernaturally  perfect. 

He  did  indeed  attempt  a  proof  of  this  thesis.3  He 
appealed,  as  has  been  done  in  all  ages,  to  the  subjective 
impression  effected  by  the  Bible.  But  he  fails  to  observe 
that  this  impression  is  produced  by  its  fundamental  truths 
and  its  essential  message,  not  by  all  its  books  or  narratives, 
still  less  by  its  every  word  or  detail.  Many  indeed  of  these 
he  considered  to  be,  in  their  obvious  meaning,  derogatory  to 
God’s  greatness.  He  said  that  the  Scriptures  must  be  divine 
because  they  speak  of  Christ  Who  is  divine,  a  proof  which 
does  not  rise  above  the  dignity  of  a  mere  play  on  words. 
He  referred  to  the  prophecies  which  they  contain  as  a  proof 


1  He  professes  himself  indebted  to  a  Jew  for  explaining  to  him  what  was 
meant  by  the  words  “by  your  tradition.”  Horn,  in  Matt.  245. 

'2  Philokal .  fragm. 

3  Dc  Princ.  iv.  rov  dconveuarov  r?ts  Otlzs  7 pc.<p),s.  Ilia  hermeneutics 
are  here  theoretically  stated. 


) 


False  Views. 


191 


of  supernatural  inspiration,  failing  to  observe  that  this  argu¬ 
ment  has  no  bearing  upon  whole  books  from  which  the  ele¬ 
ment  of  prophecy  is  altogether  absent.  But  in  point  of  fact 
Origen  s  proofs  are  but  the  after-thoughts  devised  in  support 
of  an  unexamined  tradition.  They  could  not  have  had  a 
particle  of  validity  for  any  logical  or  independent  mind. 

How  small  is  their  demonstrative  force  may  be  seen  in 
the  fact  that  to  Origen,  and  to  many  of  the  Fathers,  they 
were  as  valid  for  Bel  and  the  Dragon  and  the  Story  of 
Susanna,  if  not  even  for  the  Sibyl,  Hystaspes,  and  the  Book 
of  Enoch,  as  for  the  Prophecy  of  Isaiah  and  the  Gospel  of 
St.  John. 

The  false  theory  at  once  necessitated  a  false  system  for  its 
support.  Origen  saw,  as  plainly  as  Philo  and  Barnabas  and 
J ustin  and  Clement  had  done  before  him,  that  the  do<nna  of 
verbal  dictation  is  at  once  confronted  by  the  most  decisive 
proofs  of  its  impossibility  if  Scripture  be  taken  as  it  stands. 
He  could  not  help  seeing  that  it  would  be  simple  blasphemy 
to  predicate  of  every  clause  of  the  Old  Testament  that  it  is, 
taken  literally,  the  direct  utterance  of  God. 

a.  He  saw,  for  instance,  and  insisted  on  the  fact,  that  the 
Bible  is  fall  of  the  frankest  anthropomorphism,1  such  as  led 
Tertullian  and  the  Egyptian  Monks  to  believe  exclusively  in 
a  corporeal  God. 

b.  He  saw  much  in  the  Old  Testament  narratives  which 
seemed  to  him  immoral  and  unbecoming.  His  system  rose  in 
reality  not  from  reverence  for  the  Scriptures,  but  from  a 
dislike  to  their  plain  sense  which  had  at  all  costs  to  be  set 
aside.  Origen  had  no  key  to  understand  what  Pascal  calls  the 
“  sots  contes  ”  of  Scripture.  How,  he  asked,  could  it  possibly 
profit  any  one  to  read  about  the  drunkenness  of  Noah,  or 
about  Jacob,  his  wives  and  his  concubines,  or  about  the 

1  He  borrows  from  Philo  the  notion  that  it  is  unworthy  to  speak  of  Ood 
planting  trees,  or  walking  in  the  garden.  Philokal.  12.  ‘No  one  has  ever 
stated  more  frankly  and  fully  than  Dr.  Newman  the  fact  that  the  whole 
phenomena  of  the  Bible  as  it  stands  are  primd  facie  entirely  opposed  to  the 
doctrine  of  plenary  and  verbal  inspiration.  See  Tracts  for  the  Times ,  No. 
85,  pp.  30,  sq. ;  and  that  the  reader  may  see  all  that  can  be  said  and  best 
said  for  schemes  of  mystic  interpretation  see  id.  ib.  No.  87,  pp.  21,  sq. 


192 


False  Views. 


liorrid  incest  of  Lot,  or  about  the  foul  story  of  Judah  and 
Tamar  ?  All  these,  he  said,  could  be  nothing  but  “  mystic 
(economies/’ 1 

c.  He  argued  that  there  were  many  things  in  the  letter  of 
Scripture — such  as  the  prohibition  to  eat  vultures — which  are 
inherently  absurd.2 

d.  Some  of  the  precepts  of  Scripture,  understood  in  their 
obvious  sense,  seemed  to  him  unworthy  and  unjust; — such 
for  instance  as  the  menace  that  the  uncircumcised  man-child 
should  be  cut  off,  whereas  the  punishment  of  excision  ought 

'  rather  to  fall  upon  his  parents.3 

e.  Other  commands  again,  such  as  that  which  bids  every 
man  to  abide  in  his  place  all  the  Sabbath  day 4 — and  other 
prohibitions  such  as  that  to  eat  of  the  unicorn  ( rpayeXacjxx 

a  creature  which  has  no  existence — showed,  he  said,  by  their 
very  impossibility  that  they  could  not  have  been  literally 
intended.5  He  applied  the  same  remark  to  large  parts  of  the 
prophecies  about  Nebuchadnezzar,  Tyre  and  Egypt,  and  even 
to  passages  in  the  New  Testament  such  as  “  salute  no  man 
by  the  way,”  and  “  if  any  man  smite  thee  on  thy  right  cheek,” 
and  the  details  of  the  Second  Temptation,  where  Christ  was 
made  to  see  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world.6 

1  Bede  argues  in  much  the  same  way.  See  infra ,  Lecture  V.  How,  asks 
Origen,  could  hearers  possibly  be  edified  by  the  trivialities  of  Leviticus,  or 
Numbers?  and  how  could  God  have  given  minute  regulations  about  fat  and 
leaven  ?  or  how  could  He  have  narrated  small  unimportant  facts  about  Abra¬ 
ham  ?  or  have  justified  bloody  wars  and  fierce  imprecations  ?  Literalism,  he 
said,  would  destroy  the  possibility  of  the  Christian  faith.  See  In  Lev.  Horn. 
v.  5.  In  Gen.  Horn.  iv.  3  ;  vii.  1 — 3.  In  Hum.  Horn.  xvi.  8,  &c. 

2  Deut.  xiv.  5.  So  Jerome,  In  Matt.  xxi.  “  Ubi  materia  vel  turpitudinem 
habeat  yel  impossibilitatem  ad  altiora  transmittimur.  ”  In  supporting  his 
view  Origen  quoted  Ezek.  xx.  25,  biKaiupara  ov  /caAa,  but  said  that  mystically 
understood  (vpbs  bidvoiav)  the  commandments  were  good.  C.  Cels.  vii.  20. 
Heypeaks  of  the  crKdvSaAa  real  irpoaKoppara  k<xI  dbvyara  in  the  literal  sense 
of  Scripture.  “Unde  vilitas  literae  ad  preciositatem  nos  spiritualis  remittit 
intelligentiae.”  In  Hum.  Horn.  xii.  I. 

Gen.  xvii.  14  ;  De  Frinc.  iv.  17.  One  of  the  Chapters  of  the  Philokalia 
is  7repl  toO  5eIV  tov  deov  dtiov  vovv  £v  t olovtols  (7jTetV. 

4  Ex.  xvi.  29. 

De  Frinc.  iv.  18  ;  7roAAol  rb  dXoyov  epepaivoven,  erepoi  5e  rb  abwarSv. 
~2,vvv(privev  n^ypacpT]  rfj  laropia  rb  fir)  yei'Sp.evov.  i rfj  /nev  p .77  bvvarbv  yzvkaQai  irrj 
Se  bvvarbv  pty  y evecrdcu  ov  pr]v  y*yevr\p ivov  [id.  15).  See  C.Dcls.  iv.  44  ;  Philo- 
kal.  12 ;  In  Levit.  Horn.  vii.  5. 

6  De  Frinc.  iv.  16  (Matt.  v.  39  ;  Luke  x.  2,  &c.).  After  touching  on  these 
passages  he  adds,  TrArjcrtc vs  5e  t ovtois  k<x\  aAAa  pvpia  (vecrTi  Tbv  a.npifiovv'ra. 


193 


False  Inferences, 

f.  He  said  that  in  the  Evangelists  there  were  many  things 
which,  taken  literally,  involved  not  only  discrepancies  but 
direct  contradictions  ;  and  that  many  doctrines  were  not 
announced  by  the  Apostles  with  perfect  distinctness  who 
therefore  left  the  more  precise  proof  and  determination  of 
dogmas  to  “  the  disciples  of  science.”1  Even  a  Peter  and  a 
Paul  saw  but  a  fragment  of  the  truth.2  Thus  Origen  was 
perhaps  the  first  propounder  of  a  definite  “  doctrine  of 
development.” 

In  reading  most  of  Origen’s  difficulties  about  the  Bible  in 
its  literal  meaning,  we  stand  amazed.  We  might  have 
supposed  that  it  would  not  have  needed  the  additional  in¬ 
sight  of  so  many  centuries  to  show  any  man  that  by  the 
slightest  application  of  literary  criticism  they  vanish  at  a 
touch.  They  are  simply  the  birth  of  that  openly  avowed 
presupposition  (7 rpoX?^t?)  which  the  Alexandrians  bi  ought 
with  them  to  the  study  of  Holy  Writ.  Had  Origen  been  taught 
to  take  Scripture  as  the  literature  of  a  chosen  race,  and  to 
claim  for  it  no  more  than  it  professes,  no  more  than  it  claims 
in  each  part  for  itself ;  had  he  abstained  from  applying  to  the 
whole  of  Scripture  mere  fragments  of  clauses  often  divorced 
from  their  meaning  and  dissevered  from  their  context,  which, 
m  any  case,  can  have  had  no  further  extent  of  application 
than  that  to  which  they  were  originally  applied,  he  would 
have  contemplated  such  difficulties  with  a  smile.  It  was  only 
because  he  saw  Scripture  in  a  false  light  that  he  was  unable 
to  account  for  its  most  salient  phenomena  except  by  explaining 
them  away.  Allegory  by  no  means  sprang  from  spontaneous 
piety,  but  was  the  child  of  Rationalism  which  owed  its  birth 
to  the  heathen  theories  of  Plato.3  It  deserved  its  name,  for 

TTjprjfrat  fa ep  rod  avyKaraOeadai  ra7s  kcit'cl  t b  farbv  yeyevrifxivais  iaroplats 

?t epa  arj  av/ified f]K6Ta.  .  . 

1  He  also  speaks  of  the  solecisms  in  John,  and  says  that  m  one  passage  the 
literal  sense  involves  an  irreconcilable  contradiction  ;  and  he  speaks  01  the 
heavy  and  intricate  style  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 

2  limn,  in  Jercm.  viii.  Origen’s  chief  exegetic  views  are  scattered  through  the 

3rd  and  4th  books  of  the  De  Principiis.  n 

8  See  the  very  pertinent  remark  of  Mosheim  De  turbata,  &c.  p.  zii.  u  win 
of  course  be  clear  that  I  am  not  here  deprecating  the  value  of  teaching 
professedly  allegoric  (see  Trench  on  the  Parables ,  pp.  12,  13),  but  only  the  dis¬ 
tortion  of'  plain  narratives  into  allegories  which  have  no  connexion  with  the 

O 


j  9 1  A  ssumptio  ns. 

it  made  Scripture  say  something  else  (ciXXo  ayopevecv )  than 
it  really  meant.1 

Such  being  the  assumptions  of  Origen  it  was  easy  for  him  to 
persuade  himself  further  of  very  contradictory  views  about 
the  literal  sense.  He  thought  that  it  would  serve  well  enough 
for  the  faith  of  the  masses,  nay,  even  that  the  physical  sounds 
of  Scripture  might  have  a  value  for  the  multitude  akin 
to  that  of  magic  formulae  ; 2  and  yet  he  says  that  the  literal 
sense,  if  uncorrected,  has  a  tendency  to  lead  both  to  moral 
and  intellectual  aberrations — to  carnal  views  of  God  like 
those  of  the  Marcionites  ;  or  to  Gnostic  distinctions  between 
God  and  the  Demiurge  of  the  Old  Testament ;  or  to  idolatrous 
practices;  to  unbelief;  to  heresy;  and  even  to  immoral 
deeds.3  Judaism  was,  in  his  opinion,  but  a  veiled  Christianity, 
and  the  Hew  Testament  itself  but  an  introduction  to  an 

unwritten  and  spiritual  reality. 

It  was  as  easy  for  Origen  as  for  Philo  to  find  Scripture  argu¬ 
ments  in  favour  of  his  own  theories.  Just  as  it  was  said  of  the 
Holy  Sufferer  in  Isaiah,  “  He  hath  no  form  nor  comeliness,” 
and  yet  on  the  Mountain  of  Transfiguration  the  body  of  the 

literal  sense.  See,  however,  Burton,  Heel  Hist.  ii.  283.  The  positive  argu¬ 
ments  of  the  Fathers  in  favour  of  allegory  are  founded  on  misapplications 
which  have  long  been  rejected  as  untenable  ;  and  they  confused  allegory 
with  tvnology  (as  in  1  Cor.'  v.  7,  8),  and  with  arguments  a  fortiori  such  as 

2  Cor.  iii.  7-13,  14.  ... 

1  Baur  points  out  clearly  the  origin  of  the  allegoric  interpretation.  The 
minds  of  men  were  full  of  new  ideas,  and  yet  theii  ancestial  faith  asseited  its 
indefeasible  authority.  Since  the  Scriptures  were  accepted  as  the  source  of 
all  truth  it  became  necessary  to  force  the  new  ideas  out  of  them.  “  All  that 
was  necessary  was  to  find  the  right  key  for  the  explanation  of  tlie  books  of  the 
Old  i  Testament,  and  then  exegesis  could  bring  forth  out  of  those  books  the 
ideas  which  the  commentator  had  unconsciously  put  into  them.  They  fancied 
that  they  were  keeping  a  firm  hold  of  the ,  old  faith,  but  in  reality  they  had 
substituted  entirely  new  ideas  in  its  place.’’  Gh.  Hist.  i.  19. 

2  G.  Gels.  i.  18,  opa  oiroia  pidXXov  bvuarai  iirKrrpepai  Kcd  avroOev  robs 

OLKOVOVTCLS  K.T.  X.  .  . 

3  He  thought  that  neither  Jews  nor  heretics  could  be  convinced  by  the 
literal  sens e^PhiloJcal.  6.  He  says  {id.  7)  that  from  the  Scriptures,  taken 
literally,  many  roiavra  viroXapi^dvovcn  Trep\  rod  ®eov  bir oiaovbe  irepl  rov  w/xot- 
drov  Ka\  d SiKcordrov  duOpcvnov  atria  5e  Train  ro?s  Trpoeiprjpierois  pevSoSo^icby  Kal 
aaefrnuv  r)  Ibiwrinuv  irep]  ©eou  xSycou  ovk  &Wrj  ns  elvai  8o/ce7  r/  7;  ypacpp  Kara  ra 
TryevpiariKa  /xlj  vtvorHitvr]  aKX'  ws  irpbs  rb  xf/iXbv  ypapp.a  e^€iX7]p.p.€vr] .  lhe  most 
remarkable  expression  of  his  opinion  that  the  literal  sense  leads  to  immorality 
is  to  be  found  in  his  Stromata  ( ap .  Jer.  in  Gal.  v.).  It  ends  with  “  Multorum 
er^ro  malorum  occasio  est  si  quis  in  Scripturae  carne  permaneat.”  See  Orig. 
Jlom.  in  Gen.  vi.,  Horn,  in  Lcvit.  vii. 


Fantastic  Proofs . 


195 


Lord  slione  with  dazzling  lustre,  so,  he  says,  the  nature  of  the 
divine  word  shines  forth  to  those  who  ascend  the  mountain  to 
gaze  on  it.  The  ascension  of  the  mount  is  to  him  the  appli¬ 
cation  of  the  allegoric  method.  Origen  seems  to  have  been 
unconscious  that  any  particular  sentence  of  Scripture  is  not 
to  be  made  applicable  to  the  whole  of  Scripture.  If  St.  Paul 
incidentally  uses  the  passage  of  the  Israelites  through  the  Red 
Sea  as  furnishing  an  analogy  of  baptism,1  or  in  one  single 
instance  gives  an  allegoric  turn  to  the  story  of  Sarah  and 
Hanar,2  Ormen  armies  that  therefore  a  mystical  meaning 
must  have  been  intended  throughout  the  whole  narrative  of 
Scripture.  St.  Paul  said  “  the  letter  hilleth ,  but  the  Spirit  giveth 
life!’  3  If  by  this  he  had  meant  that  all  Scripture  was  to  be 
allegorically  interpreted  it  is  clear  that  his  phrase  “  the  letter 
killeth”  would  in  the  strongest  way  have  condemned  the 
literal  sense  altogether.  His  meaning  was  quite  different, 
and  the  Fathers  who  did  not  wholly  exclude  the  literal  sense 
only  took  so  much  of  the  phrase  as  suited  their  controversial 
purpose.4 *  If  St.  Paul  spoke  of  marriage  as  “  ct  great  mystery , 
what  had  this  to  do  with  the  interpretation  of  the  whole  Old 
Testament  ?  Or  what  was  the  bearing  upon  this  question  of 
the  remark  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  that  Christians 
have  come  not  to  Sinai  but  to  Mount  Sion  ?  6  It  is  obvious 
that  such  proofs  are  either  absolutely  irrelevant  or  are  wholly 


1  1  Cor.  x.  1.  He  also  refers  to  1  Cor.  ii.  6,  7  ;  ix.  9,  10  (which  is  simply 
a  merciful  analogy,  not  an  explanation)  ;  and  to  1  Tim.  1,  8  ;  Eph.  v.  32, 
which  are  nihil  ad  vein  ( 0 .  Cels.  iv.  p.  197  cd.  Spencer). 

2  Gal.  iv.  21.  .  n  , 

3  2  Cor.  iii.  6  ;  this  passage  is  appealed  to  by  Greg.  Nyss.  I  rooem.  m  Cam.  ; 
Gre".  Naz.  Or  at.  1  ;  Didymus,  ap.  Jer.  and  many  other  Fathers. 

4  St.  Paul  probably  means,  as  Theodoret  and  Chrysostom  interpret  him, 
that  the  written  Law  of  Moses  was  a  law  which  threatens  death,  and  that  the 
grace  of  the  Spirit  was  life. 

3  Eph.  v.  31.  . 

6  We  constantly  find  in  the  Fathers  this  radically  vicious  method  of  giving 
universal  application  to  isolated  passages.  Commenting  on  the  words,  “  I  will 
open  my  mouth  in  a  parable,”  Jerome  says,  “  Ex  qua  intelligimus  umvcrsa 
quae  scripta  sunt  (!)  parabolice  sentienda,  nec  manifestam  tantum  sonare 
literam,  sed  abscondita  sacramenta.”  One  very  intelligible  limitation  ol 
Allegory  and  Typology  has  been  adopted  by  some  English  divines,  viz.  that 
we  should  only  admit  them  when  actually  sanctioned  in  Scripture.  1  his  is 
the  view  of  Bishops  Marsh  and  A  an  Mildert,  Bampt.  Led.  p.  2^9,  and 
Mackniglit,  St.  Paul's  Epistles ,  iv.  439. 

v 


O 


196 


A  llegoric  System . 


inadequate  to  sustain  the  mountain-loads  of  inference  which 

were  made  to  rest  upon  them.  . 

St.  Paul  borrows  an  incidental  illustration  from  the 

methods  of  the  Rabbis,  without  for  a  moment  disturbing  the 
literal  sense ;  Origen  borrows  from  heathen  Platonists  and  from 
Jewish  philosophers  a  method  which  converts  the  whole  of 
Scripture,  alike  the  New  and  the  Old  Testament,  into  a  series 
of  clumsy,  varying,  and  incredible  enigmas.  Allegory  helpe 
him  to  get  rid  of  Chiliasm  and  superstitious  literalism  and 
the  "  antitheses  ”  of  the  Gnostics,  but  it  opened  the  door  for 

deadlier  evils.1  #  . 

For  the  allegoric  system  might  he  claimed  by  a  Valentinus 

no  less  than  by  an  Origen,  and  the  “  proofs  ”  of  the  one  were— 
if,  such  a  method  be  supposed  to  furnish  any  proofs— just  as 
valid  as  those  of  the  other.2  In  fact  if  Origen’s  principles  and 
example  were  valid  it  was  idle  for  him  to  complain  of  those 
who  interpreted  even  our  Lord’s  miracles  of  spiritual  diseases 

only.3 

But  Origen  went  still  further.  Having  started  with  the 
assumption  that  every  clause  of  the  Bible  was  infallible, 
supernatural,  and  divinely  dictated,  and  having  proved  to  his 
own  satisfaction  that  it  could  not  be  intended  m  its  litera 
sense,  he  proceeded  to  systematise  his  own  false  conclusions. 
The  Bible,  lie  argued,  is  meant  for  the  salvation  of  man  ;  but 
man,  as  Plato  tells  us,  consists  of  three  parts— body,  soul,  and 
spirit.  Scripture  therefore  must  have  a  threefold  sense  corre¬ 
sponding  to  this  trichotomy.4  It  lias  a  literal,  a  moral,  and 


*  DnMa"ttand  liar^Ages,  p.  174)  speaks  much  more  strongly  than  I 


J1CL  (  UCbVrC  jriCf(sO)  Jy*  -*- *  **/  c  1  C  1  «ta  -mirfTvf 

have  done  “If  Origen’s  plaything  were  not  the  word  of  God  je  mi* 
often  be  amused  by  his  childish  fooleries  ;  but  when  we  consider  wha 
lias  been  (lone  to  truth  by  the  way  of  allegorising  (or  as  it  is  now  called 

spiritualising)  the  Bible,  it  cannot  be  looked  on  without  d  s  *g  .  t  - 

Bishop  Wordsworth’s  Miscellanies ,  11.  17  (on  the  Intel  pie  <  I 

3  See  Horn,  in  Joann,  viii.  .  T  ..  .  -na(qOT,PT1m‘ncr 

4  SeeOrig.  DePrincip.  iv.  8, 11, 12,  14, 19  ;  Horn.  in  Lent.  v.  ,  Redepennm0, 

Origen.es ,  i.  232  ;  Gieseler,  i.  232,  243.  f  ,,  ^  ih  „  fnr 

Origen’s  threefold  sense  is  practically  the  fourfold  sense  of  the  Fathers,  for 

his  “  spiritual”  sense  involves  both  allegory  and  anagoge,  th  n  ;  i 

practically  make  this  division  (Redepenning  i.  226).  He  uses  the  w old 
ivayurh  of  explanations  which  are  simply  allegories.  Tims  he  Slves 
allegoric  sense  to  Matt.  xiv.  IS,  and  says  /.era  rb  jarrbv  «d  *«t«  amywr 
rhy  t 6ttov 


Threefold  Sense. 


197 


a  mystic  meaning  analogous  to  the  body,  to  the  soul,  to  the 
spirit.  This  conclusion  also  he  supported  by  quoting  what 
seems  to  be  a  mere  mistake  of  the  Septuagint.1  In  Prov. 
xxii.  20  “  Have  I  not  written  unto  thee  excellent  things 
(D^;fe)  in  wisdom  and  in  knowledge,”  the  LXX.  has  teal  av 
8e  dvroypa^ai  avra  r p  icrcr  co?,  and  the  V ulgate,  Ecce  descripsi 
tibi  trijpliciter .2  If  the  Hebrew  marginal  reading  be  right, 
and  if  the  idea  of  three  things  lies  in  the  Hebrew  word  at 
all,  it  refers  at  most  to  three  subsequent  verses.  But  Origen 
relying  on  the  translation  applied  to  the  entire  Bible  an 
isolated  reference  to  a  single  passage.  He  thus  gave  to  his 
own  fancy,  wdiat  he  took  to  be  an  inspired  sanction,  and 
contributed  a  pure  mistake  to  the  blind  acceptance  of  the 
exegetes  of  a  thousand  years. 

But  of  two  of  these  three  supposed  senses  Origen  makes  very 
little  use.  To  the  moral  sense  he  refers  but  seldom ; 3  to  the  lit¬ 
eral  sense  scarcely  at  all.4  Indeed  in  many  passages  he  speaks 
disparagingly  of  the  literal  truth  of  the  Scripture  narratives.5 
This  constitutes  his  retrogressive  and  disastrous  originality.6 
He  constantly  uses  allegory  where  his  own  principles  give 
him  no  excuse  for  doing  so.  He  had  so  completely  deadened 
in  his  own  mind  the  feeling  of  historic  truth  that  he  allegorises 
not  only  such  narratives  as  that  of  the  Creation,  but  even  the 
Law,  the  Histories,  and  the  Prophets.  The  acceptance  of  the 


1  The  Chaldee  and  Syriac  agree  with  the  Vulgate  in  adopting  this  reading  ; 
some  have  supposed  allusions  to  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes  and  Canticles  ;  or  to 
the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Hagiographa.  Both  interpretations  are  as 
untenable  as  that  of  Origen.  If  the  idea  of  “three  things”  lies  in  the 
word  at  all  it  may  refer  to  verses  22,  24,  26.  The  Fathers  following  Origen 
apply  it  to  the  literal,  tropologic,  and  anagogic  sense. 

-  Grig.  PhiloJcal.  8  ;  De  Princ.  iv.  11. 

3  He  disparagingly  compares  it  to  the  earth,  the  body  ;  and  yet  with  curious 
literalism  he  argues  that  the  stars  are  living  beings  from  Job  xxv.  5  (De 
Princ.  i.  7).  For  passages  which  depreciate  the  literal  sense  see  C.  Cels.  vi.  70  ; 
vii.  20  ;  Horn,  in  Gen.  vi.  §  3  ;  x.  §  4  ;  De  Princ.  iv.  8-28. 

4  Chiefly  iu  the  Homilies,  and  not  always  happily.  Thus  he  comments  on 
“  Joseph  died,  and  the  children  of  Israel  multiplied,”  by  saying  that  if  Joseph 
died  in  us,  i.e.  if  we  carry  in  our  bodies  the  death  of  Christ,  our  spiritual 
graces  will  grow  and  multiply.  Horn,  in  Exod.  i. 

5  Thus  on  John  i.  20,  he  says  uanep  iiri^adpa  xfrl<T°Lp.evoi  TV  IvToplef  tci 
ixvt)  r r)S  a.\r)0e'ias  faTOvvres  iv  ’ypap./iaTi. 

0  See  this  amply  proved  by  Origen’s  remarks,  Ilom.  in  Gen.  iii.  4-6  ;  vii. 
5  ;  x.  1  ;  Horn,  in  Levit.  vi.  3  ;  Horn,  in  Num.  xxiii.  5.  See  these  and  other 
passages  quoted  in  Denis,  p.  41. 


198 


Arbi  tv  ary  Fancies . 


simple  narrative  becomes  too  commonplace  for  liim  ;  he  com¬ 
pares  it  to  the  transgression  of  eating  raw  the  Paschal  Lamb.1 
Thus,  like  Philo,  he  loses  much  of  the  historic  grandeur,  the 
poetic  beauty,  the  human  tenderness  of  the  Scriptures.  They 
become  to  him  a  book  of  Alexandrian  mysticism,  into  which 
he  everywhere  reads  the  views  which  alone  he  considers  to  be 
“  eternal  truths.”  2  Arbitrary  in  its  purport,  immeasurable  in 
its  extent,  a  great  part  of  this  allegoric  comment  becomes  a  mere 
shuffling  of  subjective  commonplaces.3  It  is  the  servile  hand¬ 
maid  of  a  fancied  Gnosis,  and  almost  deserves  the  scornful 
remark  of  Porphyry,  that  it  attributes  all  kinds  of  strange 
meanings  to  what  had  been  said  by  Moses  with  perfect  clear¬ 
ness.4  “  Hoc  divinare  magis  est  quam  explanare  ”  was  the  just 
criticism  passed  upon  him  (as  he  frankly  tells  us)  even  by  his 
contemporaries.5 

In  details  Origen  is  constantly  misled  by  defective  literary 
canons  and  imperfect  linguistic  knowledge.  He  was  not 
sufficiently  acquainted  with  the  laws  of  Hebrew  parallelism 
to  prevent  him  from  drawing  mystic  inferences  from  synonyms 
and  repetitions.  Thus  he  thinks  that  there  is  a  mystery  in 
the  repetition  of  the  word  “  God  ”  in  “  I  am  the  God  of 
Abraham,  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob;”  6  and 
that  the  expression  “  Rebecca  was  a  virgin,  neither  had  any 

1  Ex.  xii.  8,  oi)K  &/J.7JV  ovv  fipwreov  t)]v  aapKa  rod  ayvod  uairsp  ir oiudaiv  oi 
rr/s  Ae^eeos  dovAoi  rpdnrov  aAdyuv  £uwv  k.t.X. 

2  Horn,  in  Num.  xxv.  8,  “Non  tam  reges  quam  vitiorum  nomiva 
quae  regnant  in  hominibus.”  Horn,  in  Jos.  i.  7,  “  Jntra  nos  enim  sunt 
omnes  gentes  istae  vitiorum.”  Horn,  in  Gen.  x.  4,  “In  his  non  historiae 
narrantur,  sed  mysteria  contexuntur.” 

3  See  Bohringer,  iii.  366-373.  “  Allegorical  interpretation  amounted,  in 

practice,  only  to  a  species  of  aphoristical  philosojjhy  on  the  occasion  of  Bible 
passages,”  Ueberweg,  i.  319. 

4  Porphyry  Kara  Xpianavuv  iii.  (np.  Euseb.  H.  E.  vi.  19).  A Ivlyyara  rd 
irapa  McoDcre?  epavepus  A  eydyeva  elvai  Koyiraaavres  Kal  iirideidaavres  us  Oeairiayara 
irAi/pri  Kpvepiwv  yvarr/pievu.  He  goes  on  to  charge  him  with  Hellenising,  and 
clothing  Hellenic  thoughts  in  Jewish  myths.  He  says  that  Origen  borrowed 
the  principles  of  Plato,  Numenius,  the  Stoics,  Chaeremon  and  Cornutus, 
— irap’  uv  rbv  yeraXi/irriKhv  ruv  irap’  l,EAA i/ai  yvari/piuv  •yvovs  rp&irov  r ais 
’lovba'iKais  irpoai/ype  7 parpais.  Even  Jerome,  who  is  himself  an  offender,  com¬ 
plains  that  Origen’s  treatise  on  Hosea  is  chiefly  occupied  by  explaining  the 
meaning  of  “Ephraim”  ;  that  in  his  three  volumes  on  Malaehi  “  Historiam 
ornnino  non  tetigit,  et  more  suo  in  allegoriae  interpretatione  versatus  est.  ” 

5  Horn,  in  Exod.  xiii.  2. 

6  Ex.  iii.  16  ;  Hem.  in  Joann,  ii.  §  16. 


199 


Errors  of  Origen. 

man  known  her  ”  (Gen.  xxiv.  16),  must  mean  that  Christ 
is  the  husband  of  the  soul  when  it  is  converted,  and  that 
Satan  becomes  the  husband  of  the  soul  when  it  falls  away.1 

One  or  two  brief  specimens  of  his  method  must  suffice. 
When  we  are  told  that  Rebecca  comes  to  draw  water  at  the 
well  and  so  meets  the  servant  of  Abraham,  the  meaning  is, 
according  to  Origen,  that  we  must  daily  come  to  the  wells  of 
Scripture  in  order  to  meet  with  Christ.  He  thinks  that  there 
is  a  contradiction  because  in  Ex.  i.  5  the  midwives  are  not  said 
to  have  killed  the  female  children  as  well  as  to  have  saved  the 
male  children.  A  glance  at  the  text  show's  that  there  is  no 
difficulty  whatever  in  an  expression  of  the  plainest  kind.  But 
failing  to  see  that  the  Scriptures  are  written  according  to  the 
ordinary  rules  of  language,  he  explains  the  female  children  to 
mean  carnal  affections,  and  the  male  children  the  reasonable 
sense  and  intellectual  spirit.  So  that  when  men  live  their  life 
in  pleasure  Pharaoh  is  killing  the  males  in  them  and  preserving 
the  females.  In  the  twenty-first  verse  of  the  same  chapter 
Origen  follows  the  mistranslation  of  the  LXX.  “  because  the 
midwives  feared  God  they  made  for  themselves  houses,”  2  and 
declaring  it  to  be  inconsequent,  takes  it  to  mean  that  if  we 
act  like  the  midwives  in  keeping  alive  the  spiritual  sense  we 
shall  gain  eternal  life.  In  Gen.  xviii.  2,  the  Septuagint  says 
that  the  three  men  stood  above  Abraham,3  and  this  is  interpreted 
to  mean  that  Abraham  submitted  himself  to  the  will  of  God. 
Of  what  use,  he  asks,  is  it  to  me,  who  have  come  to  hear 
what  the  Holy  Spirit  teaches  the  human  race,  to  be  told  that 
Abraham  stood  under  the  oak  of  Mamre  ?  Mamre  means 
“  Vision,”  and  the  sense  of  the  passage  is  that  God  was  pleased 
with  the  insight  of  Abraham.  What  meaning  can  there 
possibly  be,  he  asks,  in  our  being  told  that  “  the  Lord  opened 
the  eyes  of  Agar  ”  ?  Where  do  we  read  that  she  had  closed 

1  Horn,  in  Rom.  vii.  §  8  (De  la  Rue,  iv.  604).  It  need  hardly  he  said  that 
the  tautology  is  only  due  to  the  descriptive  fulness  of  Hebrew'  style,  just  as 
“  I  am  a  widow  woman,  and  my  husband  is  dead,”  2  Sam.  xiv.  5.  ' 

2  Ex.  i.  21,  iiroli]<Tav  eavTals  obdas,  LXX. 

3  Gen  xviii.  2,  etaTTjKuaau  indyu  avrov,  LXX. 


200 


Allegory. 

eyes?  Is  it  not  clear  as  daylight  that  the  mystic  sense 
implies  the  blindness  of  the  Jewish  synagogue  ! 

But  the  allegoric  method  is  still  more  inexcusable  when  it 
invades  the  simplest  and  most  precious  passages  of  the  New 
Testament.  St.  Mark  tells  us  (x.  50)  that  Bartimaeus  when 
he  hastened  to  Jesus  flung  off  his  coat.  Origen  cannot  con¬ 
ceive  that  the  dignity  of  the  Evangelist  would  have  allowed 
him  to  record  such  a  trivial  circumstance  (as  he  regards  this 
to  be)  without  a  mystic  meaning.1  We  feel  it  to  be  singularly 
out  of  place  when  the  mention  of  divorce  in  Matt.  xix.  leads 
Origen  into  a  long  digression  about  the  marriage  of  the  soul 
with  its  guardian  angel.  We  cannot  value  the  method  which 
explains  “  the  water-pots  of  stone  containing  two  or  three 
firkins  apiece/’  to  be  the  Scriptures  which  were  intended  to 
purify  the  Jews,  and  which  sometimes  contain  two  firkins, 
namely,  the  moral  and  literal  sense,  and  sometimes  three, 
namely  also  the  spiritual ;  nor  are  we  able  to  see  the 
smallest  relevance  in  the  remark  about  the  six  water-pots 
that  the  world  was  made  in  six  days.  There  are  many 
beautiful  and  touching  lessons  in  the  humble  triumph  of 
Palm  Sunday,  but  it  loses  every  particle  of  its  natural  instruc¬ 
tiveness  when  we  are  told  that  the  ass  represents  the  letter 
of  the  Old  Testament,  the  ass’s  foal,  which  was  gentle  and 
submissive,  the  New  Testament,  and  that  the  two  Apostles 
who  go  to  loose  them  are  the  moral  and  mystic  sense.2  Nor 
are  we  in  any  better  position  to  understand  “  whose  shoe’s 
latchet  I  am  not  worthy  to  bear,”  or  “  to  unloose,”  when  it 
is  made  to  refer  to  Christ’s  Incarnation  and  descent  into 
Hades,  “  whatever  Hades  may  be.”  3  All  such  comments 
are  a  fierdfiacrLs  els  aWo  ryevos.  They  do  but  weary 
and  offend  us  with  a  sense  of  incongruous  unreality.  They 

1  Orig.  Comm,  in  Matt.  (xx.  33). 

2  For  abundant  specimens  of  Origen’s  allegorising  methods  see  lluet, 
Origeniana,  II.  2  Ger.  13  ;  (De  la  Rue  iv.  App.  240-244). 

8  Horn,  in  Joann,  vi.  §  18  (De  la  Rue,  iv.  p.  136).  The  passage  is  long 
and  difficult.  Et  5e  /xvariKbs  6  i rep\  rwv  vTrob^/xdrwv  t6i tos  ou5e  tovtou  irapeA- 
de iv  &£iov.  ol/j.cu  roivvv  TTjV  p.ev  evuvOpwir-pa lv  ore  aapKa  nal  al/ua  dvaXapL^dvei  6 
tov  Qeov  vlbs  t b  erepov  elvai  tu v  vrobTjfidTwv,  ri]V  8e  els  abov  Kardfiaaiv,  oaris 
7TOT6  60"T IV  6  0.5r]S}  K.T.X. 


201 


Influence  of  Origen. 

change  tender  human  narratives  into  dreary  and  ill-con¬ 
structed  riddles.  With  the  highest  admiration,  and  even  the 
deepest  reverence  for  Origen,  whose  spiritual  teaching  is  often 
full  of  beauty  and  depth,  and  whose  isolated  comments  are 
often  valuable,  we  can  only  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
foundations  of  his  exegetic  system  are  built  upon  the  sand. 

V.  The  influence  of  Origen  was  wide  and  deep,1  and 
all  the  more  so  because  he  did  but  expand  and  systematise 
in  the  Christian  Church,  as  Philo  had  done  in  the  Jewish, 
the  principles  which  we  have  already  seen  at  work  in  the 
writings  of  the  Fathers.  Even  those  who,  like  Methodius 
and  Cyril,  opposed  some  of  the  best  parts  of  Origen  s 
teaching,  yet  interpreted  Scripture  in  a  similar  way. 
Methodius,  an  ardent  Platonist,2  commenting  on  Gen. 
xv.  9,  explains  “the  calf,  the  goat,  and  the  ram  of  three 
years  ” 3  in  Abraham’s  sacrifices  to  mean  his  soul,  his  sentient 
faculty,  and  his  mind.4  The  same  arbitrary  mixture  of 
allegory  and  dogma  is  found  in  the  works  of  Cyril.  It  is 
needless  and  impossible  to  speak  separately  of  him,  and  many 
others  of  the  Fathers,  and  in  point  of  fact  there  is  no  new  or 
original  principle  observable  in  their  comments.5 6  Gregory 


1  Gieseler  says  that  “his  exegetical  writings  were  the  model  and  sources  for 
all  succeeding  Greek  commentators  ”  (i.  232)  ;  he  might  have  added,  and  for 
most  Latin  ones  also. 

See  his  only  extant  work,  the  Symposium,  or  irepl  ayvelas,  It  is  printed 
in  Migne,  vol.  xviii. 

3  That  Hippolytus  explained  Scripture  by  the  same  methods  we  see  from 
his  comment  on  Gen.  xlix.  12  in  his  book  I)e  Christo  et  Antichristo.  His 
interpretation  resembles  that  of  Justin.  Thus  “His  teeth  are  whiter  than 
milk  ”  is  made  to  refer  to  the  commands  which  come  from  the  mouth  of  Christ, 
which  are  white  like  milk.  He  still  more  clearly  shows  the  basis  of  his 
system  in  his  book  on  Daniel.  Explaining  the  Story  of  Susanna  as  forming 
part  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  he  says  that  Susanna  represents  the  Church  ;  her 
husband  Joacim  is  Christ ;  the  garden  is  the  calling  of  the  Saints  ;  Babylon  is 
the  world  ;  the  bath  is  baptism;  the  two  Elders  are  the  Jews  and  the  Gen¬ 
tiles  ;  and  the  two  handmaids  are  Love  to  God  and  Faith  in  Christ. 

In  Cant.  '\i.  /  Methodius  says  that  the  60  queens  are  royal  souls  like 
those  of  Enoch,  Seth  ;  and  the  concubines,  the  souls  of  the  Prophets  after  the 
Deluge.  In  Judg.  ix.  he  explains  the  trees  who  went  to  choose  a  king  to  be 
sinful  souls  before  the  Incarnation  which  now  implore  the  mercy  of  God  (see 

1  hotius,  tod.  234-2o7  ;  Schlock,  K.  G.  iv.  427,  sq.  ;  Rosenmiiller,  Hist. 
Inlerpr.  iiL  187,  sq.). 

6  Euseb.  11.  E.  vi.  46;  Steph.  Gobar.  ap.  Thot.  Cod.  232;  Guerike,  Be 
Schol.  Alex.  67. 


202 


4 


Influence  of  Origen. 

Thaumaturgus,1  the  martyr  Pamphilus,2 3  Athanasius,0 
Didymus  the  Blind,4  Pierius,5  Theognostus,6  Hierax  of 
Leontopolis,7  Eusebius  of  Vercellae,8  Eusebius  of  Csesarea,9 
Firmilian,10  Victorinus  of  Pettau,11  all  made  some  con¬ 
tributions  to  exegesis  in  their  day,  but  there  is  nothing 
distinctive  in  their  special  methods.  Like  many  others 
they  openly  expressed  their  admiration  of  Origen,  and 
largely  borrowed  from  him  in  their  writings.  It  was  the 
express  object  of  the  Presbyter  Rufinus  to  make  him  known 
in  the  West.  The  great  Cappadocian  Fathers  adopted 
many  of  his  views.12  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  the  brother  of 
Basil,  was  the  most  Origenising  of  all  the  Fathers  of  the 
Nicene  age,  and  he  adopted  not  only  his  exegetic  system,  but 
also  many  of  his  dogmatic  opinions.13  Even  Tillemont 14 
admits  that,  from  the  days  of  Origen  to  those  of  Chrysostom., 
there  was  not  a  single  eminent  commentator  who  did  not 
borrow  largely  from  the  works  of  that  great  man.  They 
found  in  them  as  Doucin  says  TJne  source  inepuisable  de 
lumieres.  In  spite  of  the  unjust  and  sweeping  condemnation 


1  See  his  Apology  for  Origen  in  De  La  Rue’s  edition,  vol.  iv. 

2  Euseb.  H.  E.  vi.  53  ;  vii.  32  ;  Jer.  Catal.  75  ;  Routk,  Eel.  Sacr.  iii. 
491-512  ;  Bohringer,  iii.  578  ;  Schrock,  K.  G.  xii.  93,  sq. 

3  See  Rosenmiiller,  Hist.  Int.  iii.  206,  sq.  He  follows  Origen  in  the  remark 
that  the  literal  sense  is  often  unworthy  of  God.  The  genuineness  of 
Athanasius’s  commentary  on  the  Psalms  is  doubtful,  but  his  letter  t© 
Marcellinus  on  the  Psalms  is  excellent,  and  it  is  needless  to  point  out  the  high 
value  of  his  contributions  to  exegetic  theology. 

4  Jer.  j Ep.  84  ;  Apol.  adv.  Euf. ;  Socrates,  H.  E.  iv.  25  ;  Baronius,  Ann. 
a.d.  347. 

5  He  was  called  ‘‘the  young  Origen”  (Phot.  Cod.  119  ;  Jer.  Catal.  76  ; 
Euseb.  H.  E.  vii.  32). 

6  He  was  a  pupil  of  Origen,  and  was  called  “  the  Exegete.” 

7  Epiphan.  Haer.  67. 

8  Jerome  calls  him  an  admirer  and  imitator  of  Origen. 

9  Euseb.  H.  E.  vi.  53  ;  Pliotius,  Cod.  118.  He  was  greater  as  a  scholar 
and  historian  than  as  an  exegete.  Fragments  of  his  commentaries  have  been 
published  by  Mai,  Nov.  Patr.  Bibl.  iv.  and  Migne,  vi.  His  EvayyeXiuv 
Siacpocvia  is  unfortunately  lost. 

10  Euseb.  H.  E.  vi.  27.  11  Jer.  Ep.  Ixv.  2 

12  Kicepli.  H.  E.  xi.  17  ;  Schrock,  K.  G.  xiv.  ;  R.  Simon,  Hist.  Crit. 

(N.  T.)y  p.  Ill,  sq.  ;  Buddeus,  Isag.  1385,  sq. 

13  See  Rupp,  Greg.  v.  Nyssa,  pp.  243-262  ;  Schaff,  Ch.  Hist.  ii.  907.  For 
Gregory’s  exegetical  preference  of  allegory  see  Prooem.  in  Cant.  Basil,  how¬ 
ever,  though  not  free  from  it,  has  some  strong  and  wise  protests  against  it 
(Hexaem.  ii.  2  ;  iii.  9  ;  ix.  1  ;  Horn.  I.  in  §  9,  c.  2). 

]4  Tillemont,  iii.  266. 

I 


Hilary. 


203 


of  his  theology,  he  yet  was  the  chief  teacher  of  even  the 
most  orthodox  of  the  Western  Fathers.1  They  delighted  in 
a  system  which  still  left  them  some  semblance  of  originality 
and  freedom.  We  need  only  instance  the  names  of  Hilary 
of  Poictiers  and  of  Ambrose. 

YI.  Hilary,  “  the  Athanasius  of  Gaul,”  admirable  as  a 
theologian,  and  powerful  as  a  writer,2  but  commonplace  as  an 
exegete,  was  almost  entirely  dependent  on  Origen.3  Jerome 
says  that  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Psalms,  he  imitated 
Origen  and  added  some  things  of  his  own,  and  that  his  com¬ 
mentary  on  St.  Matthew  and  his  book  on  Job  were  free  trans¬ 
lations  of  Origen.4  Like  many  other  Latin  Fathers  he  knew 
no  Hebrew.  A  specimen  of  his  remarks  on  passages  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testament  will  show  the  general  character  of  his  ex¬ 
egesis.5  Writing  about  the  inscription  of  the  Psalms,' “  To  the 
chief  musician  a  Psalm  of  David,”  6  he  adopts  the  mistaken 
rendering,  “  In  finem  intellectus  David”  and  infers  that  Psalms 
headed  “  in  finem  ”  7  had  no  relation  to  contemporary  history, 
but  must  all  be  explained  of  Christ.  The  50th  Psalm  (A.Y.  li.) 
refers  to  forgiveness,  because  its  number  is  that  of  the  year  of 


1  See  the  remarkable  testimony  of  Suidas  s.v.  *npiyevr)s.  rrAelara  tax l 
avapiQ^ra  iKAeXoLirev  ws  e£  £kPivov  tt  auras  robs  /xeTeireiTa  eKKArjaLas 
SifiaaKaAovs  Kcd  acpop/u.as  elArjcpevai,  ws  6  deoAoyos  (pdcnceL  Tp'pyopLos,  [Ipiyevips 

7]  TraVTWV  7 1/J.WV  0.K0V7]. 

2  Jerome  calls  him  “a  Rhone  of  eloquence.”  Domer’s  estimate  of  his 
theology  is  very  high. 

3  On  Hilary  see  Schrock,  xii.  252,  sq.  ;  Rosenmiiller,  Hist.  Interp. 
301,  sq.  ;  Buddeus,  Isagogc,  1388,  sq.  Both  Ambrose  and  Hilary  speak  of 
the  contradictions  of  Scripture  from  which  we  can  only  escape  by  allegory 
(Diestel,  pp.  80  ff. ). 

4  Jer.  Catal.  100,  “  Quos  de  Graeco  Origenisin  sen  sum  transtulit.  ”  Hilary, 
not  quite  honourably,  avoided  acknowledging  his  obligations  to  Origen — “  ut 
Origeniani  nominis  invidiam  vitarct”  (Erasm.). 

5  Jerome,  perhaps  unjustly,  implies  that  he  also  knew  but  little  Greek 
(Graecorum  literarum  quamdam  aurulam  ceperat),  and  was  assisted  in  under¬ 
standing  Origen  by  the  Presbyter  Heliodorus  (Ep.  ad  Marcell,  and  ad  PauHin. 
Dc  Inst.  Monach.). 

6  “in'?  n:v;p?. 

7  LXX.  els  rb  reAos.  The  remark  is  borrowed  from  Eusebius,  who  also 

refers  the  superscription  rvriiirr^y  irepl  Atjvwv,  LXX.  ( Protorcularibus ,  ulg. ) 

of  Fs.  8  to  Christian  altars  and  the  wine  of  the  Eucharist  (Diestel,  p.  119). 
Hilary  says  that  Pro  torcularibus  shows  the  Psalm  to  be  about  the  new  fruits 
prepared  out  of  men  by  God’s  Spirit  The  inscription  probably  means  “in 
ihe  maimer  of  Gath.” 


204  Hilary. 

jubilee.  In  Ps.  li.  (A.Y.  lii.)  the  Latin  version  has  the  inscription 
“  When  Doen  the  Edomite  came  and  told  Saul,  David  came  to 
the  house  of  Abimelech.”  Hilary  says  that  Ahimelech  means 
“  my  brother’s  empire,”  and  that  St.  Peter  explains  this  when 
he  writes  “  Ye,  as  living  stones,  are  built  into  spiritual 
houses,  to  a  holy  priesthood.”  We,  therefore,  are  to  be  built 
into  this  spiritual  house  if  by  spiritual  edification  we  become 
like  to  God  ;  and  Doeg’s  revelation  to  Saul  that  David  had 
gone  into  the  house  of  Ahimelech  refers  to  the  betrayal  of 
Christ  to  Pilate.  The  same  methods  are  applied  to  the 
New  Testament  still  more  disastrously.  Of  all  the  comments 
quoted  from  the  Fathers  in  the  Catena  Aurea ,  those  of  Hilary 
are  usually  the  least  satisfactory.  They  show  as  little  insight 
as  those  of  Remigius  or  Rabanus  Maurus.  Peter’s  mother- 
in-law  becomes  a  type  of  infidelity.  The  birds  of  heaven 
which  sow  not,  neither  do  they  gather  into  barns,  are  evil 
spirits;1  the  lilies  of  the  field  are  angels;2  the  “grass” 
signifies  the  Gentiles ;  two  sparrows  which  are  sold  for  one 
farthing  are  sinners  made  up  of  mind  and  body,  who,  though 
born  to  fly  with  spiritual  wings,  sell  themselves  for  the 
smallest  faults  and  become  one,  since  the  subtlety  of  the 
soul  grows  heavy  into  the  nature  of  bodies.3  Yet  Hilary 
seems  to  have  been  so  entirely  convinced  of  the  truth  of  this 
dreary  irrelevance,  that  after  explaining  the  clouds  in  Psalm 
cxlvi.  to  mean  the  writings  of  the  Prophets,  and  the  rain  the 
Gospel  doctrine,  and  the  mountains  Prophets  and  Apostles, 
and  the  beasts  men,  and  the  young  ravens  Gentiles,  he  adds 

1  Matt.  vi.  26,  27,  “  Under  the  name  of  birds  He  exhorts  us,  by  the 
example  of  the  unclean  spirits  to  whom,  without  any  trouble  of  their  own, 
provision  of  life  is  given  by  the  power  of  the  Eternal  Wisdom.”  Kemigius, 
with  just  as  much  right,  says,  ££  By  the  birds  of  the  air  are  meant  the  saints .” 

2  Matt.  vi.  31,  ££  By  the  lilies  are  to  be  understood  the  eminences  of  the 
heavenly  angels.” 

3  Here  are  other  specimens  :  Matt.  iv.  18-22,  ££  Leaving  the  ships,  that  is, 
carnal  desires,  and  their  nets,  that  is,  the  love  of  the  world,  they  followed 
Christ ;  by  James  is  understood  the  Jewish  nation  .  .  .  ;  by  John  the  Gentile 
world.  Zebedee,  whom  they  leave  (the  name  is  interpreted  £  tailing  ’  and 
£  flying  ’),  signifies  the  world  which  passes  away  and  the  Devil  who  fell  from 
Heaven,”  &c.  Matt.  viii.  28,  “  The  demon  held  the  two  men  among  the  tombs 
without  the  town,  i.e.  without  the  synagogue  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets, 
that  is,  they  infested  the  original  seats  of  the  two  nations  (Jews  and  Gentiles), 
the  abodes  of  the  dead,”  &c. 


Ambrose. 


205 


that  to  understand  these  things  otherwise  would  be  a  matter 
not  only  of  error  but  even  of  irreligion.1  He  seems  to  have 
thought  that  it  would  have  been  better  to  leave  many  Scrip¬ 
ture  mysteries  unexplained,  but,  he  says,  “  We  are  compelled 
by  the  vices  of  heretics  and  blasphemers  to  do  things 
unlawful,  to  climb  heights,  to  utter  things  unspeakable,  to 
seize  things  unpermitted.”  2 

VII.  Nor  is  St.  Ambrose  a  whit  behind  him  in  the  ad¬ 
option  of  Origenistic  allegory,  and  Philonian  methods,3 
though  he  does  not  deny  the  literal  sense.  There  is  much 
that  is  ingenious,  pious,  and  forcible  in  the  writings  of 
this  great  practical  Bishop,  but  we  can  judge  of  the 
wild  license  of  his  method  when,  in  his  comment  on 
Cant.  viii.  1,  he  says  that  there  the  Emperor  Gratian 
declared  to  his  brother  of  august  memory,  that  he  is 
furnished  with  the  fruits  of  divers  virtues.4  The  allegoric  in- 
terpretation  of  the  locusts  which  John  the  Baptist  ate ;  of  the 
second-first  Sabbath ;  of  the  Moth  and  the  Rust ;  of  the  days 
of  Creation ;  and  many  more  details  are  all  in  the  current  style ; 
and  his  defence  or  extenuation  of  Peter’s  denial  of  Christ 
deserves  the  sarcasm  of  Jerome  that  it  defends  Peter  at  the 
expense  of  Christ  who  said,  “  Thou  shalt  deny  me  thrice.” 
Jerome  says  of  his  two  commentaries  on  St.  Matthew  and 
St.  Luke,  that  the  latter  trifles  in  the  words  and  drowses 
in  the  meanings,  and  the  other  is  dull  in  both.5  Jerome, 
however,  wras  strongly  prejudiced  against  him.6  In  his  Cata- 

1  “Haec  ita  intelligere  non  dicam  erroris  sed  irreliqiositatis  est  ”  (Hil. 
in  Ps.  146). 

2  Hil.  l)e  Trin.  ii.  There  is  a  monograph  by  Eeinken,  Hilarius  von 
Poictiers,  1864. 

3  See  Siegfried,  Philo,  pp.  371-391. 

4  Tract,  de  Obit.  Valent,  ii.  12. 

6  Jerome  says,  “  Nuper  Ambrosius  sic  illius  (Origenis)  Hexaemeron  com- 
pilavit  ut  magis  Hippolyti  sententiam  Basiliique  sequeretur  ”  {Pp.  84,  7)  ; 
“  Ante  paucos  dies  quorumdam  in  Matthaeum  et  Lucam  commentaries  vos 
legisse  dixistis  e  qnibus  alter  et  sensibus  hebes  esset,  et  alter  in  verbis  luderet, 
in  sententiis  dorniitaret  ”  (Ilufinns,  Inv.  in  Hieron.  ii.  22-29).  Augustine, 
on  the  other  hand,  always  speaks  of  him  with  high  respect  (see  Aug.  Conf. 
vi.  4). 

6  On  Ambrose  see  Schrock,  xiv.  148,  sq.  ;  Tvosenm.  iii.  313,  sq.  ;  Buddeus, 
Isaq.  1306.  Behringer  (iv.  66)  saj^s  that  in  his  numerous  exegetic  writings, 
‘‘  Von  Beachtung  des  Wortstandes,  von  grammatisch-historischen  Auslegung 


206 


Dionysius. 

logue  he  only  says  that  he  will  make  no  remark  about  him, 
because  he  is  still  living,  and  that  he  may  not  he  blamed  either 
for  flattery  or  plain-speaking.1  He  compares  the  superficial  and 
meagre  commentary  of  Ambrose  to  the  croaking  of  a  raven 
which  makes  sport  of  the  colours  of  all  other  birds,  and  yet  is 
itself  dark  all  over.2  But  Ambrose  was  perfectly  modest 
about  his  own  writings.  “  Snatched,”  he  says,  “  from  the 
tribunals  to  the  priesthood,  I  have  to  learn  while  I  teach, 
since  I  had  no  leisure  to  learn  before.”  3  Hence  “  the  sacred 
hooks  were  to  him  what  pastoral  and  didactic  theology  has 
always  tended  to  make  them,  verbal  materials  for  edification 
which  was  to  be  extracted  from  them  by  any  and  every  kind 
of  interpretation  to  which  their  letter  could  he  subjected.”  4 

VIII.  Before  passing  to  the  school  which  endeavoured,  not 
wholly  in  vain,  to  make  a  stand  against  the  allegorising  method 
of  the  Alexandrians,  we  must  notice  the  two  writers  who 
furnish  the  finest  pieces  of  Biblical  criticism  in  this  epoch. 
One  of  these  is  the  great  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  (f  265), 5 
whose  remarks  on  the  Apocalypse  are  so  precise  and  subtle 
that  they  might  have  been  written  in  modem  times.  He 
came  indeed  to  the  erroneous  conclusion  that  the  Apocalypse 
could  not  have  been  written  by  St.  John,  and  in  his  dislike 

1st  fast  nirgcnds  eine  Spur  ;  das  Meiste  ist  allegorisirend  rdoch  fehlt  er  niclit 
an  sinnigen  Berner kungen.”  Ambrose  says  {De  Fide)  ‘  ‘  Historia  simplex  sed 
alta  mysteria  .  .  .  quia  litteralis  sensus  indignus  est.” 

1  “  Menm  judicium  subtraham  ne  in  alterutram  partem  aut  adulatio  in  me 
reprehendatur  aut  veritas  ”  {Cat.  Virr.  Illustr.  124).  Some  have  conjectured 
that  Jerome  bad  some  personal  dislike  to  Ambrose  in  connexion  with  his 
sudden  departure  from  Aquileia,  Ep.  3,  3.  Zockler,  p.  40. 

2  Praef.  in  xxxix.  Horn.  Origenis  in  Lucarn  ap.  Rufinum  ;  lured,  ii.  adv. 
Hieron.  §21.  “  Oscincm  corvum  audiam  crocitantem  et  mirum  in  modum  de 
cunctarum  avium  ridere  coloribus,  cum  totus  ipse  tenebrosus  sit.”  In  §  23 
Eufinus  defends  Ambrose,  and  calls  him  “  omnium  Ecclesiarum  columna 
quaedam.” 

3  De  Offic.  I.  i.  4.  Heinz,  in  his  severe  criticism  on  this  book  (Watch, 
Patrologia,  p.  668),  complains  especially  of  “  Schlechte  Auslegungen  der 
Schriftsteller  A.  und  N.  T.  die  vewaltsam  angezogen  werden  und  nichts 
beweisen. 

4  Rev.  J.  LI.  Davies  in  Smith  and  Wace.  The  Commentary  of  Ambrosiaster, 
which  used  to  be  printed  with  the  works  of  Ambrose,  is  of  uncertain  author¬ 
ship,  but  has  high  merits.  Sixt.  Senensis  calls  it  “brief  in  words  but  weighty 
in  matter.” 

5  He  earned  the  title  of  “  the  Great  ”  (Euseb.  H.  E.  vi.  46,  vii.  1  ;  Basil, 
Ep.  ad  Amphiioch.  Steph.  Gobar,  ap.  Phot.  Cod.  232  ;  Guerike,  De  Schol. 
Alex.,  p.  67,  and  Schrock,  K.G.  iv.  169). 


Julius  A fricanus. 


207 


to  the  crude  literalism  of  tlie  Cliiliasts  he  endeavoured  to 
attnbute  the  book  to  another  John  (who  probably  had  no 
separate  existence).  Yet  the  style  and  the  keenness  of  his 
criticism  shows  how  much  greater  advance  might  have  been 
made  in  the  study  of  Scripture  if  there  had  been  less  of 
arbitrary  fancy  and  more  of  independent  thought.1  Nor 
are  the  contributions  of  Julius  Africanus  (f  c.  240)  less 
valuable.  In  a  brief  but  vigorous  letter  to  Origen  he  ex¬ 
presses  his  surprise  that,  in  a  discussion'with  Bassus,  the  great 
Alexandrian  should  have  referred  to  the  Story  of  Susanna. 
He  says  that  at  the  time,  as  was  only  fitting,  he  did  not  like 
to  make  any  remark ;  but  in  his  letter  he  points  out  that  the 
Story  of  Susanna  is  lacking  in  propriety ;  that  it  is  full  of 
improbabilities  ;  that  it  attributes  to  Daniel  a  kind  of  prophetic 
insight  unlike  that  displayed  in  his  book  ;  that  it  formed  no 
pait  of  the  Jewish  canon  ■  and  that  it  has  two  plays  on  words 
which  would  have  been  impossible  in  Hebrew.2  Origen’s 
answer  to  this  letter  shows  signs  of  timidity,  and  appeals  te 
a  supposed  infallibility  of  tradition.  Though  full  of  ingenuity, 
it  is  quite  inferior  to  the  criticism  of  Africanus  in  grasp  and 
insight.  Not  less  remarkable  is  J ulius’s  solution  of  the  problem 
presented  by  the  two  differing  genealogies  of  Christ.  In  his 
letter  to  Aristides  he  rejects  with  wholesome  scorn  the  notion 
vyhich  seems  to  have  been  then  current  even  in  the  Church, 
that  they  are  merely  a  “  jiious  fraud,”  representing  the  desire 
to  set  forth  Christ  as  descended  from  the  kingly  line  of 
Solomon  and  the  prophetic  line  of  Nathan.3  Belying  on  a 


1  His  arguments  are  given  by  Euseb.  H.  E.  vii.  25.  He  argued  (1)  from 
style  and  phraseology ;  (2)  from  the  omission  by  John  of  his  name  in  the 
Gospel  and.  Epistle;  (3)  because  he  does  not  call  himself  anything  but  “a 
fellow-disciple  ;  ”  (4)  the  name  John  was  common  ;  (5)  the  character  of  the 
Apocalypse  is  strange.  But  the  fragment  must  be  read  at  length  by  any 
who  would .  do  it  justice.  Canon  AVestcott  (s.v.  in  Smith  andAVace)  says 
that  this  criticism  ‘  ‘  is  perhaps  unique  among  early  writers  for  clearness  and 
scholastic  precision.”  For  a  full  account  of  it  see  Liicke,  Einl.  in  die 
Offenbarung  (Bonn,  1852),  pp.  605-621. 

,  "  ?ee  Euseb.  IT.  E.  vi.  31  ;  Jer.  Catal.  63  ;  Photius,  Cod.  34  ;  Suidas,  s.v. 
AcppiKavos  ;  Nicephorus,  H.  E.  v.  21 ;  Routh,  Eel.  Sacr.  ii  225.  The 
letter  was  edited  by  Wetstein,  with  notes,  in  1674  ;  and  in  De  la  Rue’s 
Origen. 

3  Mr)  51?  Kparoir)  olros  6  A 6yos  iv  'EkkAtjoIcx.  Xpiarov  '6ti  t^eCoos  avyueircu  els 
alvov  nail  8o£oAoy(av  Xpiarov  (Routh,  Eel.  Sacr.  ii.). 


208 


J alius  A fricanus. 


tradition  preserved  among  the  Desposyni,  or  earthly  kinsmen 
of  the  Lord’s  family  who  lived  near  Nazareth  and  Kokhaba, 
he  says  that  Matthew  gives  the  natural,  and  Luke  the  legal 
descent,  and  that  the  discrepancy  is  accounted  for  by  the 
Jewish  law  of  the  levirate  marriage.  This  account  of  the 
matter  was  accepted  by  Augustine,  and  has  found  wide 
currency  in  the  Christian  world.1  One  more  service  Julius 
rendered  by  his  Chronology,  though  it  was  based  on  data, 
necessarily  imperfect.2  He  amply  deserves  his  reputation  as 
one  of  the  most  learned  of  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers,3  and  by 
no  means  the  least  acute. 

IX.  We  have  seen  that,  even  in  Origen’s  lifetime,  there  were 
protests  against  his  method  of  exegesis.4  Clemens  gives  the 
name  of  “  ignorant  brawlers  ”  5  to  those  who  repudiated  the 
vaunted  Gnosis  of  a  philosophised  religion.  There  were  many 
who  had  no  taste  for  the  speculations  which  professed  to  be  a 
“  translation  from  the  gospel  of  sense  into  the  gospel  of 
spirit ;  ”  nor  would  they  surrender  the  historic  fact  in  favour 
of  the  subjective  caprice.  They  saw  that  the  method  could 
be  used  with  equal  effect  by  heretics.6  They  saw,  too,  that 

1  Euseb.  H.  E.  i.  7  ;  Routh,  Eel.  Sacr.  ii.  228  ;  Euseb.  ad  Staph.  Qu.  4 
(Mai,  Script.  Nov.  Coll,  i.)  ;  Aug.  Eetr.  ii.  7  ;  Mill,  Mythical  Interyr.  p.  201  ; 
E.  Spitta,  Der  Brief  des  Jul.  Afric.  an  Aristid.  kritisch  untersucht  und 
hcrgestellt  (Halle,  1877). 

2  Euseb.  E.  E.  vi.  11. 

3  Jer.  Ep.  ad  Magnum ,  83  ;  Socr.  H.  E.  ii.  35.  If  the  K earoi  were  really 
by  Julius  they  were  not  worthy  of  him  ;  but  even  if  they  be  genuine,  they 
have  suffered  from  additions  and  mutilations. 

4  See  Horn,  in  Lucavi,  xxv.  ;  Horn,  in  Joann,  x.  §  13,  rpAirov  a\oycov 

Kal  aTroTeOripioij/j.ei'oov  tt pbs  robs  aXyOcibs  AoyiKobs  Sm  rod  ffvvievaL  fiovAeadai  r a 
iruev/xarLKa  ;  in  Horn,  in  Gen.  xiii.  §  3  he  compares  himself  to  Isaac,  who  dug 
wells  which  the  Philistines  came  and  disputed. 

5  ’Apa9a>s  \pocj)cade7s.  In  the  pseudo-Clementine  Eecognilions  (x.  42)  there 

is  a  protest  against  the  arbitrary  distortion  of  Scripture.  Peter  is  made  to  say 
“  There  are  many  passages  in  Scripture  which  can  be  dragged  into  any  sense 
which  each  reader  chooses,  which  ought  not  to  be  done.”  Other  protests  are 
to  be  found  in  Theophilus,  Pasch.  i.  ;  Epiphan.  Ep.  acl  Joan.  Jerosol.  2  ; 
Haer.  64,  §  4  ;  Jer.  Ep.  61  ;  Basil,  Hexaem.  9  ;  Aug.  De  Civ.  Dei,  xiii.  21, 
&c.  (Iluet,  Origcniana,  qu.  13).  The  language  of  the  Clementine  Homilies  (iii. 
'hJP5.  22,  23,  47)  opposes  the  mechanical  theory  of  inspiration,  and 

criticises  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch,  &c.,  in  a  manner  which  reminds  us  of 
Kuenen  and  Wellhausen. 

6  Thus  the  Manichaeans  argued  that  Christ  had  finally  laid  aside  His  human 
nature  from  the  text  “  Posuit  tabernaculum  suum  in  sole  ”  (Ps.  xix.  4).  which 
they  interpreted  to  mean  that  He  had  left  in  the  sun  Plis  mortal  dwelling 
(aK-nvccya),  i.e.  His  body. 


209 


Ephraem  Syrus. 

the  end  of  such  idealism  would  be  a  subversion  of  the  plain 
truths  of  the  Gospel,1  and  that  a  dangerous  use  might  be 
made  of  the  determination  to  know  Christ  after  the  flesh  no 
more.2 3  The  danger  was  illustrated  by  the  way  in  which 
Origen  explained  the  words  spoken  by  Christ  in  His  agony,0 
“  Let  this  cup  pass  from  me.”  His  gloss  upon  them  was  that 
Christ  desired  a  cup  yet  more  bitter. 

The  Egyptian  Bishop  Nepos  wrote  a  Refutation  of  the 
Allegorists,4  and  a  different  school  of  Scriptural  study  arose 
in  Syria.  Even  this  school — it  should  not  be  forgotten — 
owed  its  impulse  to  the  many-sided  genius  of  Origen.5  If  he 
exercised  an  unfortunate  influence  by  his  exaggerated  allegories, 
he  yet  gave  its  main  stimulus  to  the  critical  and  philological 
labours  of  the  best  school  of  ancient  exegetes.  One  of  the 
forerunners  of  this  school  was  the  martyr  Lucian,  whose 
revision  of  the  Septuagint  was  known  as  the  Kotvrj,  and  was 
used  in  Constantinople,  Asia  Minor,  and  Antioch.6  The 
presbyter  Dorotheus  was  not  only  a  student  of  classic 
literature,  but  acquired  the  rare  accomplishment  of  being 
able  to  read  the  Old  Testament  in  the  Hebrew  original. 
Eusebius  heard  him  expound  the  Hebrew  text  with  moderation 
at  Antioch.7 

The  best  representative  of  the  Syrian  school  of  Edessa  was 
Ephraem  Syrus,  a  man  of  singular  personal  sweetness,  and  a 
laborious  commentator,  who  died  A.D.  381.  Adopting  to  a 
great  extent  the  views  of  Origen,  he  abounds  in  allegories  of 
which  a  single  specimen  may  stand  for  multitudes.  Com- 

1  See  the  admirable  remarks  of  Neander,  Ch.  Hist.  ii.  295-302. 

2  Orig.  Horn,  in  Matt.  xv.  §  3,  ed.  Huet. 

3  In  his  treatise  on  Martyrdom,  29.  (aAA a  5e  Ta%a  fiapvrepov  alreiv 
\e\ridoTws.) 

4  ‘'EA67X0S  twj/  ’AW-nyopLcrrcoi/.  It  was  written  in  the  interest  of  the 
Chiliasts  (Euseb.  H.  E.  vii.  24),  and  was  answered  by  Dionysius  the  Great  in 
his  two  books  7r epl  iTrayyeXiuv. 

5  The  martyr  Pamphilus,  the  ardent  admirer  and  champion  of  Origen, 
founded  a  great  library  and  a  theological  school  at  Caesarea.  Euseb.  II.  E. 
vii.  32. 

6  His  MSS.  were  called  A ovKiavsia,  Jer.  Catal.  77.  See  Routh,  llel.  Sacr. 
iv.  3  ;  Westcott  on  the  Canon,  p.  392  ;  Westc.  and  Hort,  Greek  Tht.  ii.  138  ; 
De  Broglie,  L’figlise  et  VEmpire,  i.  375  ;  Newman,  Arians ,  p.  414. 

7  Euseb.  E.  E.  vii.  32  ;  Neander,  ii.  528  ;  Gieseler,  i.  247. 

P 


210 


School  of  Antioch. 


meriting  on  the  wisdom  through  which  Rahab  let  down  the 
spies  (Josh.  ii.  15),  he  says  that  it  represents  the  mystery 
of  the  freedom  of  the  mind  uncorrupted  by  the  darkness 
of  sin,  which  receives  the  teachers  of  spiritual  mysteries, 
and  then  cautiously  sends  them  away  to  the  God  of  the 
Univeise,  while  it  hopes  that  they  will  return  in  due 
time  !  But  Ephraem  s  worst  error  is  the  mingling  and  con¬ 
fusion  of  the  historic  and  mystic  sense,  which  serve  to  show 
that  for  centuries  together  exegesis  was  drifting  hither  and 
thither  on  the  open  sea  of  fancy,  with  no  compass  of  true 
principle  to  guide  its  course.  In  one  and  the  same  passage, 
even  m  one  and  the  same  verse,  he  takes  one  phrase  literally’ 
and  the  next  mystically,  after  the  aimless  fashion  afterwards 
systematised,  by  Tichonius.  Thus  on  Is.  ix.  7  he  remarks 
that  part  of  it  refers  to  Hezekiah,  and  another  part  cannot 
possibly  apply  to  him.  The  first  verses  of  that  chapter  refer, 
he  says,  to  Christ,  the  third  and  fourth  verses  to  Hezekiah 
or  to  Christ,,  the  fifth  and  sixth  verses  to  Christ  only,  except 
that  the  epithets  “  Prince  ”  and  «  Father  ”  may  also  refer  to 

Hezekiah,  whereas  the  first  clause  of  the  next  verse  can  refer 
to  Christ  alone  1 2 


X.  The  third  great  school,  the  School  of  Antioch, 
possessed  a  deeper  insight  into  the  true  method  of  exegesis 
than  any  which  preceded  or  succeeded  it  during  a  thousand 
years.  We  are  not  here  speaking  of  theological  questions, 
nor  am  I  concerned  to  enter  into  the  bitter  disputes  of  the 
fourth  century,  or  to  inquire  how  far  the  Antiochene  in¬ 
terpreters  have  been  ignorantly  misrepresented.  All  that 
I  here  affirm  is  that  their  system  of  Biblical  interpretation 
approached  more  nearly  than  any  other  to  that  which  is 
now  adopted  by  the  Reformed  Churches  throughout  the 
wor  d,  and  that  if  they  had  not  been  too  uncharitably 
anathematised  by  the  angry  tongue,  and  crushed  by  the 

Gemsis,  p.P62aemS  ac(tllaintance  Wlt]l  tllG  Jewish  Midrash,  see  Delitzsch, 

grlhV1 CaSar 1 v  ft  ?e£Cts  °f  £^raem  Syrns,  see  the  admirable  mono- 
pp  160  sq  in, I  mi '  i  nft  EpJir.  Syri  arte  hermcneutica,  especially 

Hii  217?'  W  168  S?'  (KomSsb'  183L)  S“  t0»  Care,  i.  231,  Fabriciu^ 


211 


School  of  Antioch . 

iron  hand  of  a  dominant  orthodoxy,  the  study  of  their  com¬ 
mentaries,  and  the  adoption  of  their  exegetic  system,  might 
have  saved  Church  commentaries  from  centuries  of  futility  and 
error.  Cardinal  Newman  has  talked  about  “the  connexion 
of  heterodoxy  with  Biblical  criticism,”  and  has  said  that  by 
their  contemporary  appearance  in  some  of  the  teachers  of 
Antioch  “it  may  be  almost  laid  down  as  an  historic  fact 
that  the  mystical  interpretation  and  orthodoxy  will  stand 
or  fall  together.”  A  more  fatal  admission  could  hardly  be 
made.  If  it  were  true,  it  could  only  mean  that  eccles¬ 
iastical  orthodoxy  shrinks  from  the  light  of  knowledge,  and 
that  its  exegesis  is  an  arbitrary  fiction.  The  mystical 
interpretation  has  had  every  opportunity  of  establishing 
itself  during  a  thousand  years.  It  has  been  weighed  in  the 
balance  and  found  wanting.  It  consists  of  application, 
not  of  explication.  It  ignores  the  human  element  which 
Scripture  shows  on  every  page.  While  professing  to  re¬ 
verence  the  Bible  it  detracts  from  its  authority,  and 
substitutes  in  its  place  a  hollow,  gilded  idol,  which  totters 
upon  its  flimsy  pedestal.  It  foists  into  the  Bible  its  own 
fancies  which  are  not  there.  It  approaches  the  Bible  in  the 
interests  of  a  system  pre-conceived  and  pre-established.1  It 
was  repudiated  by  the  ablest  interpreters  of  Scripture  in  its 
own  day  and  since.  It  was  by  rejecting  it  that  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia  attained  an  exegetic  skill  which  had  been  pie- 
viously  unknown.  Chrysostom,  the  ablest  of  Christian 
homilists,  and  one  of  the  best  of  Christian  men,  uses  lan¬ 
guage  entirely  inconsistent  with  the  theory  of  inspiration  on 

1  Here  is  a  comment  on  Cant.  iii.  9-11,  by  Cyril  of  Alexandria  (t  444). 
The  “  palanquin  ”  is  the  Cross  ;  its  “silver  legs”  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver 
paid  to  Judas  ;  its  purple  cushion  the  scarlet  robe  with  which  Christ  was 
mocked  ;  the  “  nuptial  crown  ”  is  the  crcwn  of  thorns  !  See  Ginsburg,  Song 
of  Songs ,  p.  67.  It  is  astonishing  that  any  one  should  support  such  theories  of 
the  meaning  of  the  poem  in  the  face  of  such  passages  as  \  ii.  ^,3,  /,  8. 
Neander  wisely  and  truly  says  that  “those  who  would 'not  admit  any  human 
element  in  Scripture  and  arbitrarily  got  rid  of  it  by  pretended  mysteries 
under  the  idea  of  showing  special  respect  to  the  Bible,  undesignedly  de¬ 
tracted  from  its  authority  .  .  .  because  they  explained  the  whole  as  a 
single  production  in  a  way  foreign  indeed  to  the  sacred  word,  but.  }  re- 
conceived  and  pre-established  as  a  divine  one  by  themselves,  thus  foisting 
into  the  Bible  what  was  not  really  there,  iv.  11. 


212 


Diodore  of  Tarsus. 


which  it  is  based ;  and  even  Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  Jerome, 
and  Augustine,  in  the  midst  of  their  undefined  and  wavering 
views,  are  betrayed  into  phrases  which  show  that  the  theory 
of  homogeneous  supernaturalism  broke  down  under  the  force 
of  facts.1  Happily,  in  his  assertion  of  a  necessary  connexion 
between  orthodoxy  and  exegetic  wilfulness,  Cardinal  Newman 
stands  alone.  Even  Roman  Catholic  historians  like  Cardinal 
Hergenrother  have  done  justice  to  the  School  of  Antioch.  If 
it  were  indeed  true  that  sound  faith  cannot  co-exist  with 
Biblical  criticism,  this  could  only  mean  that  the  Bible  is  not 
consistent  with  ecclesiastical  tradition.  The  attempt  to 
enforce  private  interpretations  by  Church  anathemas  has 
led  to  the  melancholy  spectacle  of  Councils— as  for  instance 
that  of  Sirmium — denouncing  as  heretical  the  refusal  to 
accept  certain  specimens  of  exegesis  which  are  no  longer 
deemed  tenable  by  any  ordinary  Christian  man.2 

1.  Diodorus  of  Tarsus  (t  393)  must  be  regarded  as  the 
true  founder  of  the  School  of  Antioch.3  He  was  a  man  of 
eminent  learning  and  of  undisputed  piety.  He  was  the 
teacher  of  Chrysostom  and  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia.  In 
the  days  of  Valens  he  saved  the  Church  of  his  province  from 
being  submerged  by  the  waves  of  misbelief.1  He  commented 


]  Thus  Irenaeus  attributes  St.  Paul’s  hypcrbata  to  the  vehemence  of  his 
spirit  ( Haer  ni  7).  Tertullian  supposes  a  growth  of  restraint  and  knowledge 
in  the  mind  of  St.  Paul  (Paulus  adhuc  in  gratia  rudis,  ferventer  ut  adhuc 
neophytus ,  adversus  Judaismum.  G.  Marc.  i.  20,  and  Be  Pudic  5)  See 
Chrysostom,  Horn,  in  Matt.  i.  ed.  Field,  i.  pp.  4,  5,  7  (where  he  admits  in  the 
Gospels  discrepancies  in  minor  matters)  ;  Jerome  on  Gal.  v.  12,  where  he 
speaks  of  St.  Paul  being  carried  away  by  the  vehemence  of  his  feelings 
(  Ut  homo,  et  adhuc  vasculo  clausus  infirmo  ”).  Even  Augustine  speaks  of 
the  Evangelists  writing  “  Ut  quisque  mcminerat  vel  ut  cuique  cordi  fuerat  ” 
JNeander,  iv.  10-13. 


2  c  6 


Si  quis  Faciamus  hominem  non  Patrem  ad  Filium  dixisse  dicat 
anathema  sit  .  .  .  Si  quis  cum.Jacoho  non  Filium  quasi  hominem  colluctatuni 
‘  '  ‘  yicat,  anathema  sit..  .  .  Si  quis  Flint  Bominus  a  Bomino  (Gen  xix  24) 
non  de  Filio  et  Patre  intelligat  .  .  .  anathema  sit.”  Cone.  Sirm  (a  d  357  • 

s  °niS  X!<V'hXV1k.;  Hnyluin,  i.  702.  See  Rosenmiiller,  Hist.  Interp.  iv.  291).’ 

I  he  school  of  Antioch  was  not  like  that  of  Alexandria,  a  succession  of 
connected  teachers.  It  was  rather  a  theological  tendency  which  continued  at 
N181^13.  "J®88*  after  the  condemnation  of  Ncstorius.  See  Schaff,  Oh 

Hist.  ii .  8 10.  io  this  school  belong  Fphraem  Syrus,  Eusebius  of  Emesa  (on 
whom  there  are  monographs  by  August!  and  Thilo),  Chrysostom,  Severianos, 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  and  Theodoret.  ’ 

4  Theodoret,  II.  E.  v.  4. 


213 


Theodore  of  Mopsuestia. 


upon  a  large  part  of  "both  Testaments  with  special  reference 
to  the  literal  sense.  His  works  were  unhappily  destroyed 
by  the  Arians  whom  he  had  so  successfully  refuted,  and  he 
was  also  anathematised  by  the  Euty chians,  though  not,  as 
was  commonly  but  erroneously  asserted,  by  the  Filth 
Oecumenical  Council.1  His  books  were  devoted  to  an  ex¬ 
position  of  Scripture  in  its  literal  sensed  and  he  wiote  a 
treatise,  now  unhappily  lost,  “  on  the  diffeience  between 

allegory  and  spiritual  insight.” 3 

2.  But  the  ablest,  the  most  decided,  and  the  most  logical 
representative  of  the  School  of  Antioch  was  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia  (f  428).  That  clear-minded  and  original  thinker 
stands  out  like  “  a  rock  in  the  morass  of  ancient  exegesis.” 
He  was  not,  indeed,  a  Hebrew  scholar.4  This  is  shown 
somewhat  disastrously  in  his  criticism  on  Job.  He  regarded 
it  as  a  very  imperfect  tragedy  on  a  Jewish  theme,  and 
inferred  that  the  writer  was  a  heathen  because  one  of  Jobs 
daughters  was  called  M  Amalthaeas  horn ” ! 5  He  even 
neglected  the  Peshito-  version  which  might  have  stood 
him  in  such  good  stead,  and  he  relies,  like  most  other 
Fathers,  on  the  “inspired”  LXX.6  In  his  theory  of  types 


1  The  anathemas  are  not  in  the  genuine  Acts  of  the  Council.  He  is 
defended  by  Facundus  Hermianensis.  “Should  not  the  merits  of  St.  Chry¬ 
sostom  seem  rather  to  justify  Diodorus  than  the  errors  of  Theodore  to  con¬ 
demn  him  l”  See  Neander,  iv.  209. 

2  Socrates,  H.  E.  vi.  3.  A ibSwpos  5e  .  .  .  ttoWo.  0i0\ia  avvey pai{/e  \f/iAw 
rep  ypa/xfian  rwv  Qeluv  Kare%^v  ypacpwv,  rris  Oewplas  avrwv  ticrpeirSficvos. 
Sozomenr  H.  E.  viii.  2.  Aiihwpos  tv  4nvd6p.T]v  l Slav  avyypap.fxa.rwv  iroXXas 
Kara\nre?v  P'l&Xovs,  irepl  5e  rb  firjrbv  rwv  Upw v  \6ywv  rds  ifryhaeis  Troiriaaa- 

6ai  rrjs  dewp'ias  aTroepvydvTa.  Jer.  Catal.  119.  ... 

3  tis  5icc(popci  0€c opicis  kclI  aWTiyoptus .  Su.ido.Sj  s»v*  Aio80  I>\  Iheoiia  is 

meant  spiritual  insight  which  is  not  content  with  the  letter  only.  . 

4  This  appears  from  liis  remark  on  the  word  Remphan  (Acts  vii.  43,  comp. 
Amos  V.  2(5 )  <pao\  5e  rbv  'Ewacpbpov  ovrw  Kara  rwv  'E fipa'iwv  KaXuaOae 
yXwrrav.  Any  Jew  could  have  told  him  that  the  word  is  not  Hebrew  at  all 

but  Egyptian.  . 

5  The  name  Qeren  Happuk  is  rendered  Cornustibium  in  the  \ulg.,  and 

Gregory  the  Great  derives  it  from  cornu  and  tibici!  See  Meix,  Jo"l,  p.  101. 
Theodori  Ep.  Mops,  in  Ej>p.  B.  Pauli  Commentarii,  ed.  H.  B.  Swete,  Cambr. 
1880.  Some  of  Theodore’s  commentaries  were  long  attributed  by  mistake  to 
Ambrose,  and  to  Hilary  of  Poictiers,  writers  to  whom  he  has  not  the  least 
resemblance.  I)r.  Hort’s  discovery  of  the  true  authorship,  given  in  Jorum, 
of  Class,  and  Sacr.  Philol.  iv.  302,  is  mentioned  iu  Bishop  Liglitfoot’s  Gala- 

^  ^  p  210 

<s  In  Habak.  ii,  11,  where  the  BXX.  has  the  curious  word  Kavdapos,  whicli 
misled  so  many  commentators,  Theodore  contents  himself  with  saying  that 


214  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia. 

% 

tliere  is  a  want  of  living  connexion  between  rows  of  facts 
and  no  definite  principle  on  which  to  decide  why  some  facts 
were  to  be  regarded  as  typical  and  others  not.  Like  all  the 
ancient  interpreters  he  lacked  the  conception  of  Development, 
of  a  living  growth  and  progress  in  the  order  of  revelation. 
Again — not  to  enter  on  the  defects  and  errors  of  his 
theology — he  does  not  rise  superior  to  the  influence  of 
u  bias,  which  sometimes  leads  him  to  get  rid  of  passages 
which  tell  against  his  special  views.1  It  is,  further,  true 
that  ne  is  not  eminent  as  a  textual  critic,  and  sometimes 
chooses  his  readings  on  arbitrary  principles.2  Once  more,  his 
interests  are  intellectual  and  dogmatic  rather  than  devotional 
and  spiritual,  so  that  in  these  respects  he  is  far  inferior  to 
his  friend  St.  Chrysostom.  Photius  blamed  his  style  for  its 
diffuseness,  obscurity,  and  tautology,3  and  we  cannot  but 
regret  that  he  often  attacks  other  commentators  with  scarcely 
merited  derision.  Some  of  his  faults  may  be  due  to  the 
self-i eliance  of  an  ardent  and  ingenious  temperament ;  others 
to  the  rhetorical  training  which  he  had  received  in  the 
School  ol  Libanius ;  others  again  to  restless  productiveness  ; 
others  perhaps  to  some  uncertainty  as  to  the  scope  and  issue 
ol  views  m  which  he  was  far  before  his  time.  “  His  literary 
faults,  it  has  been  said,  “  were  but  the  reflexion  of  mental 
imperfections  which  to  some  extent  vitiate  his  work  as  well 
as  his  style,  his  theology  no  less  than  the  form  in  which  it  is 
cast.  4  But  while  his  faults  are  thus  freely  admitted,  it 
remains  true  that  he  was  worthy  of  his  title  as  “  The 


“  according  to  some  ”  the  Syrian  version  renders  the  word  by  ‘  ‘  peg  ”  \  Because 

le  Apostles  used  the  LXX.  he  seems  always  to  assume  that°the  LXX.  is 
right,  the  Peshito  wrong. 

thiV^W  mh'  iT*  30  ^  Kara^as  avrSs  iartv  sal  6  'avafas)  he  denies  that 

‘ ‘ adolulnn”  J  ™  n7  ’ a an(?  oni  S01:  L  13  Persuades  himself  that  Christ’s 
v  i  tion  of  manhood  is  involved  m  tt)s  ayawy )s,  that  4v  aura  points  to  the 

?he01Chnrch '"His  and  that  the  Pleroma  which  dwelt  in  Christ  was 

i  p  lxxi  ’  ‘  J  )l  ^  •  ®ee  Swete  s  edition  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia, 

In  E‘,h-  a  22  he 

3  Photius,  Cod.  4,  but  he  calls  him  rah  dwolais  sal  ro?s  iiriXei(yf)ua(ri  Ai [cat 

Kal  tpiara  ttAovtwv  uapTvo'uus. 

1  bwete,  p.  Is  v.  r 


<< 


The  Excgete .” 


215 


Exegete  ”  of  the  early  Church,  as  Theodoret  is  the  Annotator 
and  Chrysostom  the  Homilist.  His  merits  are  so  conspicuous 
that  Theodoret  does  not  shrink  from  calling  him  “  The  Master 
of  the  whole  Church.” 

For  Theodore  was  a  man  “  of  bold  independence  and 
masculine  sagacity  ;  ”  a  leader  of  thought ;  a  writer  of  rare 
acumen,  of  fearless  honesty,  of  prodigious  industry,  of  ardent 
sincerity,  of  unquestionable  power.  He  was  a  Voice  not  an 
Echo  ;  a  Voice  amid  thousands  of  echoes  which  repeated  only 
the  emptiest  sounds.  He  rejected  the  theories  of  Origen,  but  he 
had  learnt  from  him  the  indispensable  importance  of  attention 
to  linguistic  details  1  especially  in  commenting  on  the  Hew 
Testament.2  He  pays  close  attention  to  particles,  moods, 
prepositions,  and  to  terminology  in  general.  He  points  out 
the  idiosyncrasies  (iSioo/iara)  of  St.  Paul’s  style.  He  is 
almost  the  earliest  writer  who  gives  much  attention  to 
Hermeneutic  matter,  as  for  instance  in  his  Introductions  to 
the  Epistles  to  Ephesus  and  Colossae.3  He  enters  into  such 
collateral  questions  as  Church  organisation,  early  ecclesi¬ 
astical  history,  the  condition  of  slaves  and  women  in  the 
heathen  world,  and  adds  to  the  interest  of  his  treatment 
by  references  to  contemporary  matters  such  as  sacerdotal 
arrogance,  false  liberalism,  and  the  spirit  of  persecution. 
His  highest  merit  is  his  constant  endeavour  to  study  eacli 
passage  as  a  whole  and  not  as  “  an  isolated  congeries  of  separate 
texts.”  He  first  considers  the  sequence  of  thought,  then 
examines  the  phraseology  and  the  separate  clauses,  and 
finally  furnishes  us  with  an  exegesis  which  is  often  brilliantly 
characteristic  and  profoundly  suggestive. 

But  his  crowning  merit  "was  the  original  yet  unhappily 
fruitless  stand  which  he  made  against  the  subtle  fascination 

1  Linguistic,  but  unfortunately  not  historical  or  geographical.  Questions 
about  Tarshish,  B  jthrus  (LXX.  for  Tj?  Am.  ix.  7),  &c.,  he  flings  aside  as 

ircpm)]  a.Kptfio\oyla.  #) 

2  Ambrose  says  that  Origen  was  “  lunge  minor  in  Novo  Testamento,  but  m 
spite  of  prolixity  he  is  in  fact  better  as  a  New  Testament  than  as  an  Old  Tes¬ 
tament  exegete,  and  his  notes  on  the  use  of  words  (John  i.  3  ;  iv.  35,  44,  &c.) 
are  often  excellent.  See  Dr.  Sauday  in  Expositor,  xi.  371. 

3  Questions  as  to 

“Quis,  quid,  ubi,  quibus  auspiciis,  cur,  quomodo,  quando.” 


21 G 


School  of  Antioch. 

of  Origenising  allegory.1  Part  of  the  bitterness  with  which 
his  memory  was  persecuted  was  due  to  the  anger  of  the 
Origenists  against  him  for  the  treatise  which  he  had  written 
to  refute  their  principles.2  The  Syrian  school  held  that  the 
Scriptures  are  the  basis  of  knowledge,  and  not  either  the 
esoteric  Gnosis  to  which  the  Alexandrians  had  attached  so 
much  importance,  nor  the  ecclesiastical  tradition  to  which 
Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  and  Cyprian  had  appealed.  They  were 
the  Reformers,  the  Protestants,  the  Puritans,  of  the  Ancient 
Church.  Origen  had  held  that  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
were  equally  important  ;  the  Antiochenes  had  realised  the 
vast  difference  which  separates  them.  They  recognised  that 
the  “  grace  of  superintendency  ”  (euSo/c/a),  which  they  at¬ 
tributed  to  the  Old  Testament  writers,  admitted  of  degrees. 
They  denied,  and  rightly  denied,  that  the  Jews  had  anything 
approaching  to  a  real  knowledge  of  such  truths  as  the  Trinity 
and  the  Incarnation.  Theodore  understood  the  Psalms  in  their 
historic  sense,  and,  while  he  by  no  means  denied  their  typical 
applicability,  he  was  attacked  by  Leontius  of  Byzantium, 
and  called  a  Judaiser,  just  as  Calvin  was  in  later  times, 
because  he  referred  them  primarily  to  Hezekiah  and  Zerub- 
babel,  and  only  allowed  that  three  Psalms  were  directly 
Messianic.3  He  pointed  out  that  the  Song  of  Solomon  does 
not  once  mention  the  name  of  God,  and,  like  many  eminent 
moderns,  he  rejected  its  mystic  application.  In  the  ninth 
chapter  of  Zechariah  (8-10)  he  thought  it  an  instance  of 
frigid  and  foolish  interpretation  ( avoid 9  io'^hTTj 9)  to 

See  the  excellent  remarks  of  Sieffert,  Thcod.  31  ops.  V.  T.  s  oh  vie  inteTpTe- 
tandi  vindex,  1827,  andMunter,  Be  Schola  Antiochcna,  1811.  The  monograph 
of  Fritzsche,  Be  Thcod.  Mops.  Vita  et  Scriptis  (1836),  is  printed  in  Migne’s 
Patrologia ,  vol.  lxvi. 

2  Facundus  of  Hermiane  {Def.  Triun.  Capit.  iii.  6)  cites  a  treatise  of  his, 
Be  Allegoria  et  Historia,  in  five  books,  and  mentions  the  odium  which  it 
excited.  Ebedjesu  (Assemanni,  iii.  34)  also  alludes  to  this. 

Leont.  Byzant.  adv.  Eutych.  iii.  c.  11.  “Omnes  psalmos  judaice  ad  Zoro- 
■  labalem  et  Ezechiam  retulit,  tribus  tan  turn  [viii.  xlv.  ex.]  ad  Dominum  rejectis.” 

J  acundus  defends  him  very  properly  by  saying  that  he  did  not  dispute  the 
applicability  of  all  Messianic  prophecy,  and  that  there  was  no  crime  in  the 
moral  interpretation  of  the  Psalms.  And  Theodore  at  least  assigned  reasons 
tor  Ins  views.  He  could  not  allow  Ps.  xxii.  to  be  exclusively  Messianic, 
because  in  verse  1  the  Septuagint  has  “ my  transgressions."  He  is  said  to 
have  written  this  commentary  on  the  Psalms  at  the  age  of  eighteen. 


Theodore  of  Mopsuestia.  217 

apply  one  clause  historically  and  another  allegorically,  to 
refer  one  to  Zerubbabel,  the  next  to  Christ,  and  then  to  go 
back  again  to  Zerubbabel.  He  rightly  refuses  to  read  the 
latest  revelations  into  the  earliest  utterances, — to  see  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  the  first  verse  of  Genesis,  and  the 
three  spies  of  Exodus ;  of  Redemption  in  Rahab’s  red  cord  ; 
of  the  Resurrection  in  the  law  of  levirate  marriage  ;  or  of 
the  evangelisation  of  the  heathen  in  the  Ethiopian  wife  of 
Moses.  He  stood  his  ground  on  the  doctrine  of  Unity  of 
Sense,  and  he  deduced  the  sense  on  secure  principles  from 
the  context,  from  the  general  laws  of  language,  and  from 
the  usages  of  the  particular  writer. 

Another  of  his  conspicuous  merits  is  this,  that  he  had 
grasped  the  difference  which  separates  the  Jewish  from  the 
Alexandrian  theory  of  inspiration,  a  difference  which  fun¬ 
damentally  affected  the  methods  of  the  two  schools.  To 
some  of  the  ablest  thinkers  among  the  Jews  insjjiration 
was  ethical  in  its  character;  it  consisted  in  the  dilatation 
and  ennoblement  of  the  individual  consciousness.  To  the 
Alexandrians,  misled  by  Plato,  insjDiration  was  pathological ; 
it  consisted  in  a  trance,  and  depression  of  the  individual 
consciousness.  The  difference  is  that  which  also  separates 
the  ecstasy  of  Montanists  from  the  inspired  Christian 
preaching,  to  which  the  Apostles  give  the  name  of  “  pro¬ 
phecy.”  The  different  theories  led  to  different  methods 
of  interpretation.  The  Alexandrian  theory  furnished  the 
pretext  for  allegory — that  is,  for  making  the  writers  say 
something  other  than  what  they  did  say.  The  better  Jewish 
theory,  purified  in  Christianity,  takes  the  teachings  of  the 
Old  Dispensation  literally,  but  sees  in  them,  as  did  St.  Paul, 
the  shadow  and  germ  of  future  developments.  Allegory, 
though  once  used  by  St.  Paul  by  way  of  passing  illustration,  is 
unknown  to  the  other  Apostles,  and  is  never  sanctioned  by 
Christ.1  But  Christ  Himself,  as  in  the  case  of  Jonah,  and  of 
the  Brazen  Serpent,  sanctioned  the  use  of  types.  The 

1  It  is  surely  needless  to  point  out  the  absolute  difference  between  parabolic 
teaching  and  allegorical  interpretation. 


218 


Prophecy. 

allegoric  method  triumphed  from  the  days  of  Origen  onwards. 
The  true  grasp  of  typology  ceased  from  the  fifth  to  the 
seventeenth  century — from  the  days  of  Theodore  to  those 
of  Cocceius. 

It  must  not  he  supposed  that  Theodore  rejected  the  whole 
argument  from  Prophecy.  He  neither  accused  the  Apostles 
of  error  in  their  Old  Testament  references ;  nor  did  he  deny 
the  progressive  and  providential  governance  of  God  in  the 
History  of  the  World.  He  held  that  the  essence  of  Old 
Testament  prophecy  lay  rather  in  an  inspired  hope  than  in 
conscious  vaticination  ;  that  Israel  was  under  the  special  care 
(KTjSefiovla)  of  God,  and  that  God  prophesies  by  deeds  rather 
than  by  words.  Hence  he  believed  that  the  relation  of  the 
Old  to  the  New  Testament  lay  mainly  in  the  homology  of 
facts  due  to  a  sort  of  pre-established  harmony ;  that  by  God’s 
divine  administration  ( olrcovopiLa )  the  facts  were  themselves 
a  dim  revelation  of  the  future,  and  that  the  Prophets  were 
led  by  divine  inspiration  to  express  what  they  saw  in  larger 
terms  (yTrepfioXi/cGOTepov)  than  would  have  been  warranted 
by  contemporary  circumstances.1  It  is  on  this  principle  that 
he  explains  the  applications  of  the  New  Testament  writers. 
He  sees  as  clearly  as  we  do  that  they  are  not  proofs  in  the 
modern  sense  of  the  word,  but  rather  illustrative  applications 
which  would  have  been  specially  valuable  to  those  who  had 
been  trained  in  the  methods  on  which  they  depended.2  There 
can  he  no  better  indication  of  the  fine  original  genius  of 
Theodore  than  the  fact  that  in  these  conclusions,  without  any 
aid  from  the  immense  apparatus  of  subsequently-accumulated 


1  See  Theod.  Mops.  Praef.  in  Jon.  ;  Merx,  Joel,  p.  127,  fg.  Delitzsch  on 
Ps.  xxii.  He  held  that  the  Prophets  did  not  see  distinctly,  hut  had  rpavTaalav 
Tiva  t&v  fieWAvTwv. 

2  The  phrases  he  uses  closely  resemble  those  of  Calvin.  If  Calvin  says  that 
the  sacred  writers  “  apply  ”  this  or  that  passage  to  Christ,  “pici  deflectionc ,” 
so  Theodore  says  of  Heb.  x.  5,  that  the  passage  quoted  was  originally  appli¬ 
cable  to  the  Jewish  exiles,  hut  that  the  writer  altered  the  reading  from  wria  to 
era )fxa  (fXcraWa^as  ovv  avrr]V  ojs  e/c  TTpoffwirov  rov  XpKTrov  ravrrj  (pi/](Tiv  avr\  tov 
wria,  cr&fxa).  He  uses  the  words  avyxPV(r^al)  KaTaxpycrdai,  of  the  use  made 
of  Amos  ix.  11,  Is.  xlv.  23,  in  Bom.  xiv*.  11  ;  and  defends  such  quotations  on 
the  ground  that  what  was  said  of  the  Divine  nature  generally  might  be 
applied  to  the  Son  or  the  Holy  Spirit. 


Tlieodoret. 


219 


thought,  he  anticipated  by  fourteen  hundred  years  many  of 
the  accepted  conclusions  of  modern  days. 

3.  It  is  a  matter  of  profound  regret  that,  in  the  Western 
Church  especially,  the  influence  of  Theodore  was  totally  de¬ 
stroyed  by  the  charge  of  Nestorianism.1  In  the  Syrian  Church, 
indeed,  he  produced  a  profound  impression.  His  views 
were,  to  a  certain  extent,  perpetuated  by  Theodoret,  who 
depended  almost  entirely  on  Theodore  and  Chrysostom, 
whom  he  calls  luminaries  of  the  world.  But  Theodoret 
(f  457),  though  safer  and  more  terse,  drew  back  from  the 
advanced  position  of  Theodore,  and  was  wholly  inferior  to 
him  in  genius,  courage,  and  literary  power.2  Theodore  paid  a 
terrible  penalty  for  having  been  born  in  an  age  too  soon.  His 
aberrations  from  traditional  dogma  brought  him  into  suspicion, 
and  “  a  century  later  a  pigmy  generation  anathematised 
exegetes,  who  were  already  half  forgotten.”  3  But  his  merits 
have  been  recognised  in  later  days,  and  the  stream  of  truth, 
having*  flowed  for  centuries  in  its  subterranean  course,  once 
more  emerged  at  the  ^Reformation  into  regions  of  light 
and  day. 

4.  The  great  Cappadocian  triumvirate,  Basil  the  Great, 
Gregory  of  Nyssa,  “the  Theologian,”  and  Gregory  of 

1  Among  Theodore’s  predecessors  might  have  been  mentioned  Aphraates, 
Eusebius  of  Emesa,  and  possibly  Adrianus  :  among  his  successors  his  younger 
brother  Polychronius  Bishop  of  Apamea  (t  430)  and  Severianus  Bishop  of 
Gabala  (see  Schrock,  x.  458,  Cave,  i.  375). 

2  On  Theodoret  see  Schrock,  xviii.  398  sq.  ;  Rosenmiiller,  iv.  93  ;  Merx, 
Joel ,  p.  147,  fg.  Lightfoot,  Galatians ,  p.  226.  There  is  a  monograph  by 
Richter,  De  Thcodorcto  Ep.  Paulin,  interprets,  1822  ;  and  another  by  Specht, 
Der  exegetische  Standpunkt  Theodor s  und  Theodorefs. 

On  Theodore’s  writings,  of  which  we  now  possess  some  complete  works  in 
the  original,  see  Fritzsche,  De  Theod.  Mops.  T  ita,  et  seriptis,  Halae,  1836. 
Ernesti,  Opusc.  Theol.  502  ;  Sieffert,  Tlicod.  Mops.  V.  Test,  sobrie  interpretandi 
vindex,  1827;  Diestel,  pp.  129-133  ;  Merx,  Joel,  pp.  110-141  ;  and  the  excellent 
introduction  of  the  Rev.  H.  B.  Swete  to  the  edition  of  his  Commentaries  on 
the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  The  savage  attack  on  him  by  Leontius  may  be  read  in 
Gall  an  di,  Bibl.  Pair.  xii.  686  (Libidinose  pro  sua  et  mente  et  lingua  meretrieia 
inter pr status,  sua  supra  modum  incredibili  audacia  ex  libris  saciis  abscidit, 
&c.).  The  style  of  the  theological  criticism  of  partisans  was  as  violent  and 
vulgar  then  as  it  has  always  been.  It  is  to  be  feared,  however,  that  Theodore 
in  part  provoked  it  by  his  own  stinging  expressions.  For  notices  of  the  writers 
of  the  Antiochene  School  in  general,  see  Rosenmiiller,  iii.  250.  The  merits 
of  Theodore  have  been  fully  admitted  by  Merx  {Joel,  pp.  110-141),  Bishop 
Lightfoot  {Galatians,  p.  220),  and  Dr.  Sunday  {Expositor,  vol.  xi.), 

3  Reuss,  Gesch.  §  521. 


220 


The  Cappadocians. 

Nazianzus,  followed  in  exegesis  a  via  media.  Their  profound 
admiration  of  Origen  is  proved  by  the  publication  of  the 
PMlohalia,  but  they  avoided  as  a  rule  the  extravagances  of 
allegory.1  They  sought  a  middle  term  between  a  slavish 
literalism  and  an  unlimited  play  of  fancy ;  but  the  three 
friends  are  more  famous  as  orators  and  as  theologians  than 
for  anything  distinctive  in  their  exegetical  labours.  In  the 
last  epoch  of  patristic  exegesis  three  names  tower  above  all 
others,  the  names  of  Chrysostom,  Jerome,  and  Augustine  ; 
— Chrysostom  the  Homilist,  Jerome  the  Commentator,  and 
Augustine  the  Theologian. 

5.  In  Chrysostom  we  see  the  “  bright  consummate  flower  ” 
of  the  school  of  Antioch,  to  which  he  belongs  as  a  faithful 
and  admiring  pupil  of  Diodorus  of  Tarsus.2  If  he  showed 
less  originality  and  intellectual  many-sidedness  than  his 
younger  fellow-pupil  Theodore,  he  has  more  definiteness,  a 
clearer  insight,  a  more  rigorous  logic,  a  more  practical  wisdom. 
He  was  not  so  learned  as  Jerome,  nor  had  he  Origen’ s  deep 
sympathy  with  the  more  mysterious  aspects  of  the  Gospel,3 
nor  was  he  so  profound  a  theologian  as  Augustine,  nor  was 
he  in  any  sense  a  textual  critic  like  Julius  Africanus ; 4  but  as 
a  Bishop  inspired  with  genuine  love  for  the  souls  of  his  flock ; 
as  a  preacher  of  surpassing  eloquence,  whose  popular  exposi¬ 
tion  is  based  on  fine  scholarship  and  controlled  by  masterly 
good  sense ;  as  one  who  had  a  thorough  familiarity  with  the 
whole  of  Scripture,  and  who  felt  its  warm  tingling  human 
life  throbbing  in  all  his  veins ;  as  one  who*  took  the  Bible  as 

1  Basil  stoutly  says,  “  When  I  hear  of  grass,  I  understand  it  to  mean  grass, 
and  so  of  plants,  and  fishes,  and  beasts,  and  cattle  ;  all  of  them  as  they  are 
spoken  of,  so  I  receive.”  He  adds  that  “many  interpreters  'pervert  all  this 
according  to  meanings  of  their  own,  much  like  those  who  profess  to  interpret 
dreams ;  ”  and  that  “some  have  tried  by  I  know  not  what  allurements  and 
figures  of  speech  to  get  the  Scriptures  credit  for  a  kind  of  dignity  which  is  in 
fact  of  their  own  devising,”  and  “  under  the  show  of  interpretation  to  introduce 
matters’ of  their  own.” — Hexaem.  ix.  1. 

2  See  Forster,  Chrysostomus  in  seinen  Verhdltniss  zur  Antiochenischer 
Schule,  1869. 

3  Contrast  for  instance  the  treatment  of  St.  John’s  Gospel  in  Chrysostom’s 
homilies  and  Origen’s  comments  ;  see  Westcott,  St.  John,  p.  xcv. 

4  See  Dr.  Sanday,  Expositor,  vol.  xii.  ;  Lightfoot,  Galatians,  p.  218. 
Canon  Westcott  says  (St.  John  in  Speaker's  Comment,  p.  xcv.)  “The  reader 
will  probably  miss  the  signs  of  a  spontaneous  sympathy  with  the  more 
mysterious  aspects  of  the  Gospel.” 


Chrysostom. 


221 


he  found  it,  and  used  it  in  its  literal  sense  as  a  guide  of 
conduct  rather  than  as  an  armoury  of  controversial  weapons 
or  a  field  for  metaphysical  speculations — Chrysostom  stands 
unsurpassed  among  the  ancient  exegetes.  St.  Paul  was  his 
ideal,  hut,  while  he  had  ]ess  of  the  Pauline  nature  than 
Augustine,  he  may  be  rightly  called  “another  John  for  his 
glowing  zeal  and  love,  and  he  resembled  St.  James  in  his 
practical  tendency.  Too  actively  employed  to  become  a  close 
student,  he  was  unacquainted  with  Hebrew,1  and  without  even 
a  nice  critical  knowledge  of  the  Greek  which  he  wielded  with 
so  much  force.2  Hampered  by  the  traditional  misconceptions 
which  had  already  been  introduced  into  many  passages,  he 
yet  keeps  himself,  to  a  great  extent,  free  from  vain  dogmatism 
and  baseless  allegory.3  There  are  fewer  errors  and  vagaries 
in  his  writings  than  in  those  of  any  one  of  the  bathers.  His 
manly  moral  nature,  trained  in  a  life  of  activity  and  struggle, 
his  noble  and  commanding  individuality,  his  oratorical  power, 
his  habit  of  studying  every  passage  as  a  whole,  his  general 
principle  of  eliciting  instead  of  introducing  a  meaning,4  his 
exquisitely  genial  sympathy,5 6  his  frank  recognition  of  the 
human  element  in  Scripture,  and  of  the  effect  produced  by 
the  personality  of  its  writers,0  justly  earn  for  him  the  place 
which  Dante  assigns  to  him  in  the  Paradise,  between  Nathan 
the  Seer  and  St.  Anselm,  as  one  who  “  spoke  before  kings 
and  was  not  ashamed.”  7 

“  Natan  profeta  l’metropolitano 
Crisostomo  ed  Anselmo.” 


1  He  was  dependent  mainly  on  the  Seventy,  but  sometimes  refers  (without 
name)  to  Theodotion,  Symmachus,  and  Aquila. 

2  He  makes  however  excellent  grammatical  remarks  on  John  xii.  39  ;  2  Cor. 
hi.  17  ;  Gal.  i.  18,  iv.  5,  v.  15  ;  Epli.  i.  10.  See  Dr.  Sanday  in  The  Expositor, 

xii.  134  ff.  . 

3  He  recognises  allegory  in  theory  {Horn,  in  1  Cor.  xxxix.)  hut  for  the  most 
part  avoids  it  in  practice  (see  Forster,  Chrysost.  in  seinen  Verhdltniss,  kc. 
p.  21  ;  Diestel,  p.  135.) 

4  In  Isai.  v.  3  and  vi. 

5  “  His  charm  lies  in  his  habit  and  his  power  of  throwing  himself  into  the 
minds  of  others.”  Newman,  Ancient  Saints,  chap.  v.  He  furnishes  beauti¬ 
ful  illustrations  from  the  notes  of  the  Catena  Aurea,  on  the  narrative  of  the 
Transfiguration. 

6  See  his  notes  on  Ps.  lxiv.  and  Horn,  in  1  Cor.  xxix. 

7  Par  ad.  xii.  136. 


222  Chrysostom. 

Yet  lie  was  no  ecclesiastical  statesman  like  St.  Ambrose. 
He  desired  far  more  to  see  Christianity  dominate  in  the  indi¬ 
vidual  heart  than  to  see  priests  lording  it  over  the  heritage  of 
God.  No  one  of  the  Fathers  insists  so  constantly  on  the 
importance  of  studying  Scripture  for  personal  instruction.  He 
adopts,  but  generally  with  sobriety,  the  mystic  sense.1  He 
held,  but  did  not  abuse,  the  doctrine  of  “  accommodation,” 
and  he  combined  his  view  of  inspiration  with  a  free  admission 
of  obvious  limitations.2  His  discussion  of  discrepancies  en¬ 
titles  him  to  be  regarded  as  the  founder  of  “  Harmonistic,” 
but  his  highest  merit  is  the  skill  with  which  he  develops  the 
literal  sense  by  a  study  of  the  context,3  and  a  regard  for  the 
usage  of  special  words.4  He  held  that  the  larger  part  of 
Scripture  was  perfectly  “  perspicuous,”  and  that  the  only 
aids  required  for  its  comprehension  were  a  willing  heart,  the 
guidance  of  the  wise,  and  the  help  of  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God. 
The  superiority  of  the  Antiochene  over  the  Alexandrian 
method  may  be  readily  seen  by  comparing  the  sober,  moral, 
practical  manner  in  which  Chrysostom  treats  the  subject 
of  the  Fall,5  and  the  way  in  which  the  same  topic  is  handled 
by  a  genuine  Origenist  like  Gregory  of  Nyssa. 

XI.  But  great  as  were  the  services  of  Chrysostom,  his  in¬ 
fluence  on  the  Biblical  studies  of  succeeding  ages  was  less 
powerful  than  that  of  J erome.  Jerome  was  the  Origen  of  the 
Western  Church.  The  great  hermit  of  Bethlehem  had  less 
genius  than  Augustine,  less  purity  and  loftiness  of  character 
than  Ambrose,  less  sovereign  good  sense  and  steadfastness 
than  Chrysostom,  less  keenness  of  insight  and  consistency 
of  courage  than  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia;6  but  in  learning 

He  gives  his  via  medza  theory  on  Ps.  xlvi.  to.  tc  alaOTiTa  voovvres  koI  to. 
vo-nra  iicBexfoevoi,  and  on  Ps.  cix.  rd  pe v  tt pooljuia  els  erepov,  r &  5e  \enr6fxeva 

cls  &AA ov  AeySfxevd  ianv.  This  indefiniteness  is  at  any  rate  better  than  base¬ 
less  fancies. 

2  ^ee  Com'  C  Matt.  26  ;  Boh  ringer,  Chrysost.  p.  153. 

ttjv  anoXovQiav  twv  elpTi/xeucov. 

‘  Er  hat  s,  said  Luther,  who  admired  him  more  than  any  of  the  Fathers. 

scnsus  literal is,  der  thut’s,  da  ist  Leben,  Kraft,  und  Wahreit  drinnen.” 

5  Horn,  in  Gen.  xvii. 

6  Apol.  c.  Rufin.  iii.  6.  “Ego  philosophus,  rhetor,  grammaticus,  dialecti- 
cus,  Hebraeus,  Graecus,  Latinus,  trilinguis.” 


Jerome. 


223 


and  versatile  talent  he  was  superior  to  them  all.  Deeply  as 
he  was  indebted  to  Origen,  he  surpassed  him  in  the  accuracy 
of  his  conception  as  to  what  the  true  function  of  an  exegete 
should  be.  He  was  not  a  deep  theologian ;  he  was  not  a 
great  moralist ;  he  was  an  excessively  faulty  saint ;  but  his 
wide  learning,  his  intense  and  eloquent  style,  his  literary 
skill,  his  philological  attainments,  the  use  which  he  made  of 
Jewish  authorities,  the  combination  of  a  fiery  and  passionate 
nature  with  immense  and  many-sided  ability,  the  indomit¬ 
able  industry  with  which  he  continued  to  produce  volume 
after  volume  during  years  full  of  sickness,  controversy,  endless 
correspondence,  ascetic  exercises,  and  barbarian  invasion,1 
enabled  him  to  render  services  to  the  study  of  Scripture  such 
as  are  approached  by  Origen  alone.  As  regards  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  especially  no  comments  were  so  useful  to  generations 
of  subsequent  commentators  as  those  which  they  borrowed 
wholesale  from  the  voluminous  writings  of  Jerome.  Those 
writings  have  the  additional  advantage  of  being  so  illuminated 
by  flashes  of  epigram  and  passion  that  not  one  page  of  them 
is  dull.2 

i.  Foremost  among  his  services  must  be  placed  the  Yulgate 
translation.3  No  doubt  it  is  an  easy  task  to  point  out  the 
defects  and  errors  of  that  version,  and  critics  like  Simon  and 
Clericus  have  ventured  to  speak  with  contempt  about  Jerome’s 
knowledge  of  Hebrew.4  It  would  of  course  be  unjust  to 
compare  it  with  that  critical  knowledge  which  can  be  obtained 
by  modern  scholars  with  the  help  of  grammars  and  lexicons. 

1  He  wrote  daily  letters  to  Paula  and  Eustochium,  Catcil.  135.  “  Cui  jugis 

ad  versus  malos  pugna,  perpetuumque  certamen,”  says  Sulp.  Severus,  who 
stayed  six  months  with  him  at  Bethlehem  {Dial.  i.  4).  He  adds  “Totus 
semper  in  lectione,  totus  in  libris  est ;  non  die,  non  nocte  requiescit;  aut 
legit  aliquid  semper,  aut  scribit.” 

2  In  Jerome  and  in  Tertullian  may  be  found  a  fire  which  is  wanting  even  in 
Cicero.  See  Erasmus,  Epp.  v.  19  ;  Ozanam  (Hist,  de  la  Civilisat.  chret.  ii.  100) 
calls  him  “  Le  mattre  de  Ja  prose  chretienne  pour  tous  les  siecles  suivans.  ”  See 
Zockler,  ITieron.  pp.  323-340. 

3  On  the  Yulgate  translation  and  its  high  importance  see  Hody,  De  Text. 
Bibl.  ;  Routli  (quoted  in  Expositor,  xii.  217).  The  articles  on  the  Vulgate  by 
"NVestcott  in  Smith’s  Dictionary ,  and  Eritzsehe  in  Herzog,  xvii.  422,  are  of 
gr<*at  value. 

4  It  was  impossible  for  him  with  the  scanty  appliances  within  his  reach  to 
attain  to  a  thoroughly  critical  knowledge  of  Hebrew. 


224 


The  Vulgate. 

•Jerome,  though  he  could  speak  and  understand  Hebrew, 
was  not  a  Hebrew  scholar  in  the  same  sense  as  Gesenius,  or 
Ewald,  or  Delitzsch.1  But  we  must  remember  that  he 
could  only  learn  it  viva  voce ,  without  any  other  assistance 
than  that  of  a  Hebrew  Bible  without  vowel  points  or  dia¬ 
critical  marks,  and  under  the  tuition  of  Jews,  whose  visits  to 
him  were  an  object  of  such  deep  suspicion  alike  to  Christians 
and  to  their  own  countrymen  that  they  often  had  to  be  made 
in  secret.2  J udged  by  the  standard  of  his  own  age,  Jerome’s 
knowledge  of  Hebrew  was  probably  more  thorough  than  that 
of  all  the  other  Fathers.  It  is  to  the  credit  both  of  his 
diligence  and  his  courage  that  he  should  have  devoted  twenty- 
three  years  (A.D.  382  to  405)  to  a  task  so  formidable,  and  one 
which  exposed  him  to  such  rude  animadversions  as  his  Latin 
translation  of  the  Bible.3  It  is  still  more  to  his  credit 
that  he  should  have  seen  the  impossibility  of  resting  content 
with  the  endlessly  variant  and  corrupted  copies  of  the  many 
old  and  incorrect  Latin  versions,4  and  should  have  dared  to 


1  See  “Hebrew  Learning”  in  Smith  and  Wace,  Diet,  of  Christian  Bio¬ 
graphy. 

2  One  of  his  teachers  was  Hillel,  brother  of  R.  Judah  II.,  and  grandson  of 

R.  Judah  the  Holy.  His  chief  teacher  was  the  learned  Bar-Anina.  Ep. 
lxxxiv.  §  4..  Quo  labore,  quo  pretio  Baraninam  nocturnum  habui  doctor  em  ,* 
timebat  enim  Judaeos  et  mihi  alterum  exhibebat  Nicodemum.”  Rufinus’ 
Apol.  ii.  12.  “  Barabbam,  ejus  de  Synagoga  magistrum.”  He  also  alludes 

to  a  Rabbi  at  Lydda,  whose  teaching  was  very  expensive,  and  another  from 
iiberias.  Praef .  in  Osee  ;  Praef.  in  Chron. ;  in  Esaiam,  xiii.  10  :  xxii.  1,  &e. 
It  is  from  the  Haggada  that  he  gets  the  rendering,  “in  igne  Chaldaeorum 
for  “in  Ur  of  the  Chaldees,”  Gen.  xi.  28. 

3  His  plus  labor  sed  periculosa  praesumptio ”  was  undertaken  at  the 
request  of  Hamasus  (t  384).  See  Clericus,  Quaest.  Hieron.  (1700). 

Reuss,  Gesch.  d.  N.  T.  §§  449,  453.  Engelstoft,  Hieronymus  (1797)  ; 
Schrdck,  K.  G.  xi.  61  sqq.  He  complains  bitterly  of  the  abuse  to  which  he  was 
subjected.  Praef.  in  Evang.  ad  Damasum.  He  defended  his  abandonment 
of  the  Seventy  on  the  grounds  that  (1)  the  Church  had  done  so  in  preferring 
Tiieodotion  s  veision  of  llaniel  ;  (2)  the  Apostles  often  referred  to^the  Hebrew  ; 
(3).  the.  Seventy  had  altered  Messianic  passages.  Praef.  in  Gen.  “  Nescio 
quis  primus  auctor  70  cellulas  Alexandriae  mendacio  suo  extruxerit.”  Comm. 

Interpretatio  LXX.  (si  tamen  LXX.  est,  Josephus  enim 
sci i oi t  quinque  tantnm  libros  ab  eis  translatos). ”  Praef.  in  Paralip.  “70 
cellulas  quae  vulso  sine  auctore-  jactantur.”  See  too  Praef.  in  Dan.  lib.  ii.  • 
in  Kufin.  33  ;  Zockler,  355.  He  had  to  suffer  from  incessant  attacks  of 
Obscurantists,  and  was  annoyed  by  the  timid  warnings  of  Augustine,  and  the 
curious  story  about  the  African  bishop  who  read  “  hedera  ”  for  “  cucurbita,”  in 
Jonah.  Augustine  seems  to  have  thought  that  venerable  error  was  better  than 
new.  truth  in  matters  of  translation,  and  the  strange  reception  given  to  the 
Revised  Version  shows  that  many  still  share  his  views.  See  Aug.  Ep.  82. 


225 


Services  of  J erome. 

translate  directly  from  the  Hebrew  and  not  from  the  half- 
deified  Septuagint.1  He  mercilessly  exposed  the  fables 
which  invented  for  the  work  of  the  Seventy  an  inspired 
authority.  He  sets  aside  the  pseudo-Aristeas,  and  thinks  that 
only  the  Pentateuch  was  translated  under  Ptolemy  I.  He  was 
in  advance  of  his  age,  alike  in  knowledge  and  foresight,  and 
centuries  after  his  death  inspiration  was  claimed  for  his  own 
work  which  had  been  originally  received,  like  all  new  versions, 

with  suspicion  and  abuse.2 

ii.  Another  of  his  services  was  the  extent  to  which  he  helped 
to  clear  the  views  of  the  Church  respecting  the  Canon.  In 
spite  of  the  wavering  phrases  which  characterise  every 
branch  of  his  labours,  he  drew  a  marked  line  between  the 
apocryphal  and  canonical  books  of  the  Old  Testament,3  while 

he  absolutely,  and  even  contemptuously,  rejected  the  extra- 

canonical  Christian  writings  which  had  sometimes  been 
placed  on  a  level  with  the  genuine  works  of  Apostles  and 

iii  It  must  further  be  put  down  to  his  credit  that  he  almost 
equalled  the  School  of  Antioch  in  the  care  with  which  he 
endeavoured  to  develop  the  literal  and  historic  sense.  It  is 
owing  to  his  diligence  in  carrying  out  this  endeavour,  and 
the  information  on  many  topics  which  he  was  able  to  obtain, 
that  his  commentaries  are  to  this  day  more  necessaiy  to  the 
Expositor  than  those  of  any  other  of  the  Fathers.  He  w  as 
also  one  of  the  earliest  to  collect  hermeneutic  materials  as  a 

guide  to  the  significance  of  each  separate  hook. 

But  against  these  high  merits  must  be  set  the  four  serious 
drawbacks  of  overhaste,  second-handness,  vehement  prejudice, 
and  incessant  vacillation. 

a.  Of  his  own  haste  he  has  given  us  repeated  proofs,  which 
take  the  form  of  excuses.4  In  his  various  prefaces  he  tells  us 


§  35;  Klansen,  Augustinus,  84.  Augustine  says,  “Latinorum  interpret  urn 

"Hn  ™  ?  Ae  Septnajjnt  as  well 

as  of  the  version  of  Symmachus  and  others.  -  Mormus,  Exerc.  bill.  \i.  - 

'  ^  3  see  his  remarks  on  4  Esdras  in  his  letter  to  A  lgilantius.  ^  , 

4  These  excuses  occur  very  frequently  in  his  letters.  He  would  have  dor  . 
better'tolroUowAhe  rule  of  Marcus  Aurelius,  who  tells  us  that  he  had  learnt 


226 


His  Defects. 


that  he  wrote,  or  rather  dictated,  his  commentary  i  on  the 

couU  not  h  r  °f  1000  lin6S  "  **  80  **  that  he 
;ould  not  keep  mh.s  memory  either  the  order  of  the  words 

w  ,  mealung-  bbe  says  that  his  comment  on  St 
Matthew  was  written  during  the  fortnight  of  recovery  from  a 

seveie  illness,  and  that  in  reading  it  he  hardly  seemed  to  he 
reading  his  own  work.*  He  tells  his  correspondents  that  he 
Solom  He0p  ajS,t0  translate  the  three  reputed  books  of 
tl  i  n  Pr°Verbs’  Eoclesiastes,  and  the  Song  of  Sonc-gS 
lough  he  was  at  the  time  aegrotatione  fractus.  Similar 
excuses  occur  m  other  prefaces  Tn  „„„  ,  '  uar 

he  snealrc!  nf  +1  •/>,  P  n  lls  comment  on  Isaiah 

Ol  T u r  f  ,SWlftness  of  Ms  dictation,  and  in  that  on 
adiah  he  says  that  he  dictated  whatever  came  first  to  his 

ips.  n  one  passage  he  gives  an  amusing  description  of  the 

ebuked  him  by  his  supercilious  silence,  relaxed  the  grasp  of 
lus  fingers  on  the  pen,  wrinkled  his  forehead,  and  by  every 

purpose  Th-  ^  Pr0claimed  ‘hat  he  had  come  for  no 
purpose  This  careless  haste,  to  use  his  own  recurrent 

P  lase  dictate  gwdcungue  in  huccam  venerit ,3 4 *  is  the  more  re 

markable  because  in  other  respects  he  took  the  utmost  pains 

He  visited  Constantinople  to  hear  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  and 

No  Pr°fit  bj  th<3  insight  0f  Didymus  the  Blind 

sums'  I,  se6  “P®86'  He  disbursed  large 

sums  to  secure  Hebrew  teaching,  and  he  emptied  his  purse 

to  buy  the  works  of  Origen.5  1  P 

fioiTi  tli 6  Platomst  Aloxfin rlpv  **  noTm-r*  ■#-  •  _ 

i.  12.  In  his  letter  to  Paulinns  he  makes1  a  &  G^er  1  ^aVe  no  kisure,” 
practically  mean  that  he  did  not  mean  to  bn^h™  °Lfutlle  e?cuses  which 
he  said  in  his  hasty  letters — “Non  mihi  •  ^mself  responsible  for  what 

notariorum  librariorumque  incuriae miputare  sed  tibi,  et  imperitae 

the  339 ^  2«  Terfs  of  Tobit, 
mus  et  desndatissimus.  ”  Notker  Virr  tn  Hieronymus  laborantissi- 

3  c- A°kp^  l'; 

Vesie  sacerdotali)  he  says  Ts  23)  “Satie  H  rr  hlS  Ietter  to  Fab:°Ia  (Mr.  Do 
<l™n  Judieio  seribentis  tluere  ft “ me  loquendi  impetu? 
monem.”  re>  et  moie  torrentis  turbidum  proferre  ser- 

4  See  Zockler,  377. 

Ep  84,  ad  Pammach.  et  Ocean  R  q  <<  at 

Alexandnnae  evacuarunt.  ”  ^  ostrum  marsupium  cliartae 


His  Defects. 


227 


i.  It  was  partly  due  to  this  want  of  reflexion  and  this  burned 
voluminousness  of  production  that  Jeromes  method  is 
much  that  of  a  compiler.  He  tells  us1  that  m  many  of  his 

commentaries  his  way  was  to  read  the  P1^10"^01” 
of  Orio-en  (whom  lie  generally  mentions  hrst)  Apollma  , 
Hippolytus.  Irenaeus,  Eusebius  of  Emesa,  Eusebius  of  Cae¬ 
sarea  Theophilus  of  Antioch,  Theodore  of  Herac  ea  Hilaiy, 
Victorinus,  ^Fortunatianus,  Eustathius  of  Antioch Acacmj 
Diodore  of  Tarsus,  and  Didymus  (whom  in  allusion  to  hi 
blindness  he  calls  Vidcntem  meum),  and  then  to  dictate  as  .. 

!  he  could  vhat  might  be  accepted,  either  as  his  own  or  no 
t  s  own  as  the  reader  chose*  He  mates  his  humility  tlm 
excuse -but  he  had  a  sufficiently  high  and  clear  concept, on  oi 
Tdffiy  of  an  interpreter  to  feel  that  he  thus  laid  himself 

open  to  the  just  criticism  of Uns ^  but 

ite  S  L  —  writmg., 

“tick  »S>  the  veto  eteu.e  th»t  there  -  «  <»<™« 

between  saying  a  thing  doctrinally  {Sovran* »«)  and  saying  i 
bewcc  .)  o  „  t  1,0  +nn  oft  (Hi  “  throws  truth  and 

controversially  (ryv/j-vaaTiicw), 

decency  to  the  winds.”3  He  was  avowedly  guilty  of  the  base 
modern  view  that  controversial  works  have  no  other  objec  than 
To  win  1  immediate  victory.  To  this  end  he  often  man  ges 
in  a  style  of  interpretation  which  he  theoretica  y  iepu  ia  es. 
Nothin <r  for  instance,  can  be  more  grossly  sophistical  than  hi* 
way  of  distorting  Scripture  to  support  his  favourite  monachal 
theory  of  virginity  in  his  furious  arguments  against  Jovimai . 


Proocm.  in  Eph. 


-  . . .  °op«moT- 

seen  in  Ms  Ep.  57,  ad  Kufinus.  They  are  not  so  good  as 

tandi  scrip turas  )  and.  m  ins  c  Aumistine  as  a  commentator. 

those  of  Augustine,  though  lie  suip  -  A  e  d  AUx,  .  Ep.  70  ad 

2  Ep.  73,  ad  Evangehm,  §  2  ’  f&.L  Vhree  Greek  and  eight  Latin  Fathers. 
Magnum,  §§  4,  5,  where  he  quotes  ^  ^  t  exegetical  matter  has  perished. 

§£MV“  inMs"  *  Sherome  soys  that  he  had  no  tun.  to 
mid  the  older  writers. 

s  Donaldson,  Apostol.  f  admirapie  rule  which  he  lays  down  in  his 

4  Thus  he  constantly  violates  tl  ions  and  wrest  reluctant  Scripture 

letter  to  Paulinos  “not  to  ^  ^  §  Comp.  Ep.  48,  §  15. 

iuefe?SughoM  to  Yallarsi’s  edition. )  Q  2 


228 


His  Violence. 


When  Jovinian  appeals  to  the  primal  command  “  Increase 
and  multiply/’  Jerome  answers  that  “Marriages  fill  earth,  but 
virginity  fills  Paradise  ;  ”  that  the  second  day  of  creation  was 
the  only  one  of  which  it  is  not  said  that  “  God  saw  that  it 
was  good ;  ”  and  that  all  the  animals  which  entered  two  and 
two  into  the  ark  were  unclean.1  When  Jovinian  ur^es  that 
the  Song  of  Songs  is  full  of  the  idea  of  marriage,  Jerome 
answers  by  an  allegorical  interpretation  in  which  the 
mountain  of  myrrh  means  those  who  mortify  their  bodies, 
and  the  hill  of  Libanus  means  flocks  of  virgins.  Again, 
when  he  is  arguing  against  Yigilantius,  the  Protestant  of 
the  fifth  century,  whom  in  his  usual  style  of  abuse  he  calls 
Dormitantius,  he  rages  against  his  objection  to  the  adoration 
of  relios  by  quoting  the  reference  to  the  angels  in  the  tomb 
of  Gethsemane,  and  the  verse  “  Precious  in  the  shdrt  of  the 
Lord  is  the  death  of  His  saints.”  If  he  has  to  get  over  the 
fact  that  St.  Peter  was  married,  he  does  so  in  one  place  by 
the  remark  that  Peter  had  “  washed  off  the  filth  of  marriage 
in  the  blood  of  martyrdom”2  (a  remark  which,  disgracefully 
anti-scriptural  as  it  is,  was  the  delight  of  the  mediaeval 
monks), 3  and  sometimes  by  the  impudent  fable  that  Peter 
left  his  wife  with  his  nets  and  his  fishing-boat.4  If  he  wishes 
to  explain  away  the  Gospel  passages  about  “  the  brethren  of 
the  Lord,  he  does  so  by  inventing  a  theory  that  they  were 
His  cousins,  which  he  himself  drops  when  it  has  served  his 
immediate  purpose.  Jerome  knew  better  than  this;  but  he 
boldly  defends  his  own  perversions  by  misrepresenting  the 
method  of  St.  Paul,  who  (he  says)  quoted  the  Old  Testament 
in  an  astute  and  dissimulating  way.5 

d.  But  Jerome’s  most  serious  fault,  which  no  doubt  is  in 
great  measure  the  outcome  of  these  other  faults,  is  his  total 
lack  of  exegetic  decision.  He  shows  again  and  again,  both 

1  C.  Jovin.  i.  16. 

2  C.  Jovin.  i.  26. 

3  Pet.  Damian.  De  perfect.  Monach.  (Zockler,  p.  201). 

4  Ep.  118,  §  4,  ad  Julian.  Cum  reti  cam  et  navicula  dcreliquit. 

Xo  otkei  epithet  than  deplorable  can  be  applied  to  Jerome’s  controversial 
language,  and  his  whole  degrading  style  of  abuse  and  Scripture  misrepresenta¬ 
tion  in  his  wrangles  with  Jovinian,  Yigilantius,  Rufinus,  and  Helvidius. 


His  Vacillation. 


229 


in  details  and  in  principles,  the  vacillations  of  a  hasty 
and  timid  eclecticism.  In  the  Vulgate  he  is  content  to 
leave  uncorrected  renderings  which  he  declared  to  be 
erroneous,  such  as  “  Apprefiendite  disciplinary  ”  for  “  Adorate 
Filium”  in  Psalm  ii.  12,1  and  in  Psalm  cxxvii.  4  “ ftlii 
cxcussorum  ”  for  “  filii  juventutis ”  the  meaning  accepted  by 
Aquila,  Symmachus,  and  Theodotion.2  We  can  never  be 
certain  what  Jerome  is  likely  to  say,  because  he  constantly 
contradicts  himself.  He  sometimes  extols  Aquila,  sometimes 
abuses  him.  At  one  time  he  praises  Origen  with  fervour,  at 
another  he  seems  anxious  to  repudiate  him  altogether.3  He 
sometimes  quotes  the  Septuagint  translators  as  inspired 
prophets,  and  sometimes  all  but  treats  them  with  contempt. 
He  speaks  of  the  Jews  sometimes  with  reasonable  tolerance, 
sometimes  with  blind  hatred.  In  one  Epistle  he  says  that 
at  the  Pesurrection  many  of  the  spirits  of  them  that  slept 
“  were  seen  in  the  heavenly  Jerusalem ;  ”  4  in  another  he  says 
that  “  we  are  not  in  this  place  to  think  of  the  heavenly 
Jerusalem  as  many  persons  ridiculously  suppose.”  5  He  was 
himself  so  conscious  of  these  inconsistencies  that  he  quotes 
the  verse  “  When  they  persecute  you  in  one  city,  that  is  in 
one  book  of  Scripture,  let  us  fly  to  other  cities,  i.e.  to  other 
volumes.”  6 

1  Adv.  Rufinum ,  lib.  i.  19  ;  “Quid  igitur  peccavi,  qui  in  commentariolis, 
ubi  libertas  est  disserendi,  dixerani  ‘  adorate  filium,’  in  ipso  corpore  ne  violentus 
viderer  interpres  et  Judaicae  calumniae  locum  darem  ‘  adorate  pure,  sive  electe,’ 
quod  Aquila  quoque  et  Symmachus  transtulerunt  ?  ”  See  Zockler,  p.  363,  n. 

2  A.Y.  “  children  of  the  youth,”  i.e.  sons  of  early  married  life,  LXX. 
oi  viol  tu>v  e/cTeTti'a'y/ieVcijj'.  Ep.  34,  ad  Marcelluvi,  §  3,  “  Ubi  nos  habemus 
sicut  filii  excussorum,”  kc.  Aquila  “  filii  pubertatum.”  Symm.  Theodot. 
filii  juventutis.  On  this  subject  see  R.  Simon,  Hist.  Crit.  des  Versions  du 
N.T.  cap.  vii.  ;  Erasmi  Schol.  in  lib.  Hier.  adv.  Helvid.,  and  Zockler,  p.  123. 

3  Rufinus  says  that  Jerome  had  translated  more  than  seventy  homiletic 
books  of  Origen.  See  his  Epp.  62,  ad  Tranquil!..,  and  33,  ad  Faulam.  Jerome 
says  “In  Origene  miramur  scientiam  Scripturarum,  et  tamen  dogmatum  non 
recipimus  falsitatem,”  c.  Ruf.  iii.  27. 

4  Ep.  ad  Heliodor.  60,  §  3,  “  Et  visa  sunt  in  coelesti  Jerusalem.”  Origen, 
Eusebius,  and  Hilary  were  of  this  opinion. 

5  Ep.  46,  §7.  “Nec  statim  Hierosolyma  coelestis,  sicut  pi erique  ridicule 
arbitrantur ,  in  hoc  loco  intelligitur.  ” 

6  Comm,  in  Matt.  x.  23  ;  for  some  of  his  mistakes  and  self-contradictions 
see  Daille,  bk.  ii.  c.  4,  and  Gilly’s  Vigilantius,  pp.  259-270.  To  take  an 
instance  with  wliich  we  are  familiar  in  modern  days  : — when  a  Bishop  dis¬ 
agrees  with  you  “Nihil  interest  inter  Presbyterum  et  Episcopum  ;  ”  but  when 
he  agrees  with  you  “  Apostolorum  locum  Episcopi  teueut  ” 


230 


His  Views. 


iv.  Unfortunately,  this  wavering  spirit  of  the  hasty  and 
prejudiced  compiler  vitiates  much  of  his  work.  He  abounds 
in  isolated  remarks  of  the  utmost  courage  and  value.1  Had 
he  kept  his  own  principles  steadily  in  view  he  might  have 
saved  the  study  of  Scripture  from  a  thousand  years  of 
retardation  ;  but  unhappily  his  principles  had  no  stability, 
and  were  constantly  set  at  nought  by  a  more  contagious 
practice. 

v.  It  is,  for  instance,  impossible  to  say  what  he  really 
thought,  if  he  thought  anything  distinctly,  about  the  inspira¬ 
tion  of  the  sacred  writers.  At  one  time  he  criticises  them 
with  all  the  freedom  of  an  Ewald,  and  even  of  a  Semler : 2  at 
another  he  speaks  as  if  every  word  they  had  ever  uttered 
were  so  mysterious  and  supernatural  that  even  their  con¬ 
tradictory  statements  were  equally  true.3  He  throws  up  the 
chronology  of  the  Bible  as  hopeless,  and  offers  no  explanation, 
except  the  possibility  of  a  corrupted  text,  for  the  difficulties 
and  contradictions  which  he  saw  in  it.4  He  freely  points  out 
errors  in  quotation  and  reference.5  He  criticises  the  style  of 
St.  Paul  with  perfect  freedom,  and  ventures  to  talk  about  his 
barbarisms,  cilicisms,  and  solecisms,  trivialities,  inefficient 
proofs,  and  want  of  taste.6  He  points  out  that  in  Greek  and 


1  See,  for  instance,  his  remark  on  the  original  identity  of  Presbyters  and 
Bishops  (in  Matt.  xvi.  19),  and  on  the  Power  of  the  Keys,  by  misunderstand¬ 
ing  which  he  says  that  Bishops  assume  the  pride  of  Pharisees,  and  think  that 
they  can  condemn  the  innocent  and  absolve  the  guilty  “  quum  cipud  Deum 
non  sententia  sacerdotum  sed  rcorum  vita  quaeratur .” 

2  Comm,  in  Ezcch.  xi.  ;  in  Jer.  xxi.  2  ;  Ep.  21,  §  13.  “  Haec  si  secundum 
literam  intelligimus,  nonne  ridicula  sunt  ?  ” 

3  This  discrepancy  between  nominal  theories  and  actual  practice  is  seen  in 
many  of  the  greatest  fathers.  From  Justin  Martyr,  Irenaeus,  Tenullian, 
Origen,  Jerome,  Chrysostom  and  Augustine,  not  to  mention  other  writers,  may 
be  collected  not  a  few  passages  which  not  only  freely  admit  the  human  element 
in  Scripture,  but  even  attribute  immorality  and  impropriety  to  many  passages 
taken  literally  ;  and  in  such  instances  they  usually  apply,  in  a  very  aimless 
manner,  a  wrong  meaning  of  the  phrase  “the  letter  killeth.  Allegory 
therefore  is  practically  due  to  rationalism,  i.e.  the  attributing  to  Scripture 
senses  other  than  those  which  its  words  convey.  See  Tholuek  translated  in 
Journ.  sacr.  Lit.  July  1863.  Neander,  Hist,  of  Doctrines,  i.  280. 

4  See  Ep.  72,  §5.  “Quid  enim  prodest  haerere  in  litera  et  y  el  script  oris 
errorem  vel  anuorum  seriem  calumniari  quum  manifestissime  scribatur  Litera 
occidit  1  ” 

5  On  Mark  i.  2  ;  ii.  25  ;  Matt  xxvii  9  ;  Ep.  57,  ad  Pammach.  §§  7-9. 

G  Ep.  121,  ad  At  gas.  7-11  ;  Comm,  in  Aas  xxvi.  6  ;  Gal.  iii.  1  ;  iv.  24  ; 


231 


III s  Self-  Co  n trad iction. 

Hebrew  the  plural  of  “  seed  ”  has  a  totally  different  sense  from 
the  singular,1  and  that  beriih  never  means  “  will.”  2  He  comes 
to  the  extraordinary  conclusion  that,  the  Galatians  being 
foolish,  St.  Paul  makes  himself  foolish  by  way  of  accommoda¬ 
tion  to  their  infirmities,  and  wrote  what  would  have  offended 
the  wise  if  he  had  not  premised  the  phrase,  “  I  speak  as  a 
man.”  3  Elsewhere  he  speaks  of  St.  Paul  as  carried  away 
by  his  emotions,  and  as  being  unable  to  express  profound 
thoughts  in  an  alien  tongue.4  Yet  in  other  passages  he 
uses  the  current  commonplaces  of  the  theology  of  his  day, 
and  though  he  talks  of  some  narratives  as  improper  and 
impossible,  says  that  there  are  mysteries  in  every  word  of 
Holy  Writ,  and  that  it  was  written  throughout  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.5  He  does  not  make  the  smallest  attempt  to  co¬ 
ordinate  his  lax  expressions  with  his  orthodox  assertions.  The 
latter  indicate  his  traditional  profession,  the  former  his  real 
belief.6 

vi.  Once  more,  he  is  at  complete  variance  with  himself  on 
the  subject  of  allegory.  He  complains  of  Origen  that  “  he 
mistook  his  own  subjectivity  for  ecclesiastical  mysteries,”  yet 
says  himself,  “Singula  scripturae  verba  singula  sacramenta 
sunt.”  7  In  many  places  he  entirely  disparages  allegory  as  mere 


vi.  2  ;  Eph.  iii.  3,  8  ;  Z tickler,  429-431.  He  says  that  St.  Paul  sometimes 
wrote  sermone  trivii.  See  Ep.  120,  ad  Hedib.  qu.  11  ;  Ep.  ad  Alyas. 

qu.  10. 

1  Comm,  in  Gal.  iv.  24.  2  Comm,  in  Gal.  iii.  15. 

3  Nothing  is  so  grossly  offensive  among  Jerome’s  many  faults  a,s  his 
belief  in  the  permissibility  of  a  falsitas  dispsnsativa  which  he  betrayed  in  the 
shocking  theory  that  the  scene  between  St.  Paul  and  St.  Peter  at  Antioch  was 
collusive  “  ut  hypocrisis  conceptionis  liypocrisi  emendaretur.”  He  says  of 
St.  Paul,  “  quam  artifex,  quam  prudens,  quam  dissimulator  sit  ejus  quod 
agit.”  See  his  letter  to  Painmachius  in  defence  of  his  treatise  against  Jovinian  ; 
and  the  fine  criticism  of  Augustine  Ep.  ad  Jlieron.  de  reprehertso  Petro.  On 
the  harm  done  by  this  doctrine  of  “accommodation”  see  Itibof,  De  Economia 
Patrum ,  and  Coleridge,  The  Friend ,  Ess.  v. 

4  In  Gal.  v.  12.  “  Nec  minim  esse  si  apostolus,  ut  homo,  et  adhuc  vasculo 

clausus  infirmo,  vidensque  aliam  legem  in.  corpore  suo  .  .  .  semel  fuerit  hoc 
locutus,  &c."  And  again,  “  Jn  vernaculo  sermone  doctissimus,  profundos 
sensus  aliena  lingua  exprimere  non  valebat.”  Comm,  in  Tit. 

6  In  Matt.  xxi.  4.  “  Ubi  materia  rel  tnrpitudinem  habeat  vcl  impossibilitatcm 
ad  altiora  tiansmittimur.  ”  Comp.  Comm,  in  Gal.  v.  12. 

6  Cam  in.  in  Eph.  iii.  9  ;  in  Mich.  vii.  7  ;  Ep.  27,  1  ;  in  Esaiam ,  29  ;  ad 
Marcell.  Ep.  46,  4  ;  ad  Marcell,  in  Matt.  xiii. 

7  Frol,  in  Es.  v.  10  ;  ad  Ps.  xcL ;  lieuss,  Gesch.  §  517. 


232 


Allegory. 


cloud  and  shadow.1  He  tells  us  that  he  ought  to  be  pardoned 
if  in  his  youth  he  had  written  an  allegorical  commentary  on 
Obadiah,  the  reason  being  that  he  could  not  then  understand 
him  historically.2  He  complains  of  Origen,  Hippolytus,  and 
Didymus,  because  their  exegesis  is  exclusively  allegorical. 
He  boasts  of  his  simple  desire  to  let  Scripture  speak  for 
itself.3  He  complains  that  the  faultiest  style  of  teaching  is 
to  corrupt  the  meaning  of  Scripture,  and  to  drag  its  reluctant 
utterance  to  our  own  will,  making  Scriptural  mysteries  out  of 
our  own  imaginations.4  He  blames  Eusebius  for  lapsing  into 
extravagant  allegories  in  the  fashion  of  Origen.5  And  yet, 
after  repeated  remarks  of  this  kind,  he  talks  of  the  turpitudo 
littcrae ,  and  fills  his  books  with  specimens  of  allegoric  inter¬ 
pretation  no  less  arbitrary  than  those  of  Origen  himself.  He 
calls  the  literal  interpretation  “  Jewish,”  implies  that  it  may 
easily  become  heretical,  and  repeatedly  says  that  it  is  inferior 
to  the  “  spiritual.”  He  adopts  the  threefold  sense  almost  as 
if  he  had  invented  it,6  and  is  always  ready  to  “  build  the 
superstructure,”  or  “  spread  the  sails,”  or  “  mingle  the  flowers,” 
of  mysticism,  and  to  break  up  the  hard  clods  of  the  letter.7 
He  treats  every  detail,  almost  every  syllable,  of  the  Levitic 
law  as  full  of  mystic  meanings.  The  passing  allusion  of 
St.  Paul  to  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea  as  an  analogy  to 
baptism,  furnishes  him  with  the  excuse  of  making  a  mystery 
out  of  every  one  of  the  forty-four  “stations”  in  the  wilderness, 
and  so  getting  rid  of  geographical  and  other  difficulties.8  The 
Book  of  J oshua  becomes  mainly  an  allegory  about  the  Church 

1  Comm,  in  Gal.  iii.  3  ;  i.  6  ;  Comm,  in  Jcr.  27.  “Delirat  allegoricus  in- 
terpres.”  .  .  “  Nos  qui  ista  contemnimus  quasi  pro  brutis  habent  animalibus 
et  vocant  TrqXovo-iunas.”  Comp.  Ep.  ad  Pammach.  84,  §  9. 

2  Comm,  in  Ezech.  c.  16,  init. 

3  Praef.  in  lib.  v.  Comm,  in  Esaiam. 

4  Ep.  53,  ad  Paulinum ,  §  7.  “  Quicquid  dixerint,  hoc  legem  Dei  putant.” 

5  Comm,  in  Amos,  2;  In  Ep.  ad  Pammach.  he  says,  “  Hilarius  non 
assedit  literac  dormitanti .” 

6  Ep.  120,  §  12,  ad  Hedibiam ;  1  Ep.  64,  §  9  ;  adv.  Lucif.  27,  &c. ;  Ep.  121, 
ad  Algos.  §  2.  He  quotes  Prov.  xxii.  20,  “  descripsi  ea  tripliciter,”  and  refers 
it  to  History,  Tropology  and  the  spiritual  sense. 

7  Praef.  lib.  vi.  in  Esai.  ;  Ep.  64,  ad  Fabiolam  :  Comm,  in  Osce,  c.  10,  &c. 
See  Zbckler,  370. 

8  Be  42  Mansionibus,  ad  Fabiolam. 


Allegory.  233 

and  the  heavenly  Jerusalem.  In  the  Book  of  Judges  there 
are  as  many  figures  as  there  are  leaders  of  the  people.  The 
Book  of  Ruth  is  connected  with  Is.  xvi.  1.  The  history  of 
the  Kings  becomes  an  enigma  which  indicates  the  struggle  of 
heretics  against  the  Church.1  The  Ethiopian  wife  of  Moses, 
and  the  bride  in  the  Canticles  who  is  “  black  but  comely,”  are 
the  Church.  The  adulteress  in  Hoshea  becomes  a  Mary 
Magdalene  or  a  Rahab.  The  last  chapter  of  the  Book  of 
Joel  is  explained  as  referring  to  Pentecost  and  the  Fall  of 
Jerusalem,  but  as  to  the  locusts,  Jerome  gives  a  liberal 
choice,  for  he  says  they  may  be  Assyrians  and  Babylonians, 
Medes  and  Persians,  or  Greeks,  or  Romans.  Scripture 
narratives,  full  of  warning  and  instruction,  are  regarded 
as  too  shocking  to  be  matters  of  sacred  history.  It  would 
be  an  endless  task  to  furnish  specimens  of  his  many  frivolous 
and  tasteless  fancies.2  *  He  cannot  even  abstain  from  allesror- 
ising  such  plain  New  Testament  narratives  as  the  stater  in  the 
fish’s  mouth  and  Christ’s  entry  into  Jerusalem,  or  so  simple 
a  text'  as,  “  Let  not  the  sun  go  down  upon  your  wrath.”  3 
He  flatters  himself  that  he  succeeded  in  steering  safely 
between  the  Scylla  of  allegory  and  the  Chary bdis  of  literalism, 
whereas  in  reality  his  “  multiple  senses  ”  and  “  whole  forests 
of  spiritual  meanings  ”  are  not  worth  one  verse  of  the  original.4 
He  was  constantly  swayed  by  a  spirit  of  compromise,  by 
tradition,  by  boundless  credulity,  by  the  preference  of  the 
facile  talent  of  the  compiler  to  the  severe  and  sincere  labour 
of  the  original  thinker.  He  found  it  easier  to  give  a  literary 

1  Abishag  is  divine  wisdom.  Taken  literally,  the  story  is  ‘  no  better  than 
the  figment  out  of  a  mime,  or  even  one  of  the  Atellanae.’  Ep.  52,  ad Nepotian. 

§  2  ;  yet  he  takes  it  literally,  c.  Jovin.  i.  24.  He  calls  Deut.  xxi.  12,  13 
“ridiculous”  if  taken  literally.  Tamar,  Rahab,  Delilah,  Bathsheba,  are  all 
allegorised. 

2  On  Ecc.  iv.  1,  “  If  two  sleep  together  they  will  be  warm,”  he  thinks  it 
necessary  to  refer  to  Elisha  raising  the  son  of  tlie  Shunaruite  !  In  his  Ep.  21 
ad  Damas.  §  6,  “He  divided  unto  them  his  living”  becomes  “  He  gave 
them  free  will.” 

8  Eph.  iv.  26. 

4  AY  hat  Du  Pin  says  of  Paulinus  is  even  more  true  of  Jerome.  “  He 
interlaced  his  discourses  with  endless  texts  and  often  gave  them  a  forced 
meaning.”  Ann.  Eccl.  iii.  449.  See  too  Dr.  Maitland,  Dark  Ages,  p.  174,  n.  ; 
Church  of  the  Catacombs,  p.  229,  n.  ;  Gilly’s  Vigilantius ,  p.  93  Ac.,  and  for 
the  more  favourable  views  Mbliler,  Patrologie,  p.  21. 


234 


Augustine. 


grace  and  a  dogmatic  colouring  to  the  thoughts  of  others, 
than  to  work  out  his  own  genuine  opinions  with  consistency 
and  courage.1 

XII.  St.  Augustine — “the  oracle  of  thirteen  centuries” 
— is  greater  as  an  Apologist  and  as  a  Theologian  than  as 
an  interpreter  of  Scripture.  Nothing,  indeed,  can  be 
theoretically  better  than  some  of  the  rules  which  he  lays 
down.  He  dwells  on  the  desirability  of  multifarious  know¬ 
ledge.2  He  insists  that  allegory  should  be  based  on  the 
historic  sense.3  He  recognises  the  “  more  excellent  way  ”  of 
spiritual  intuition  derived  from  love.  He  perceived  that 
there  is  in  revelation  a  progressive  element,4  and  that  there  is 
an  inferiority  in  the  degree  of  revelation  furnished  by  the 
Old  Testament.5  But  when  we  read  his  actual  comments 
these  principles  are  forgotten.  He  was  badly  equipped  for 
the  work  of  exposition.  He  knew  no  Hebrew,  and  had  but 
a  meagre  knowledge  of  Greek.6  He  is  misled  by  the  LXX. 
and  by  the  old  Latin  versions.  He  attempted  to  find  “  all,”  or 
“  almost  all,”  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  in  the  Old  Testament.7 

1  C.  Rufin.  1.  “  Commentarii  quid  operis  habent  ?  Alterius  dicta  eclisserunt, 
multorum  sententias  replicant,”  Frooem.  in  Gal.  “  Legi  haec  omnia,  et  in 
mente  men  plurima  coaccrvans  accito  notario  ml  mea  vel  alienee  dictavi.  ” 
Frooem.  in  Matt.  “  Omnes  legere  qui  in  Evangelia  scripserunt,  deinde,  adhi- 
bito  judicio,  quae  optima  sunt  excerpere,”  and  Frooem.  in  Eph.  see  Praef.  lib. 
i.  Comm,  in  Jeiem.,  where  be  answers  the  objections  of  Grynaeus  (as  be  rudely 
calls  Rufinas)  and  “indoctus  calumniator”  (Pelagius).  R.  Simon,  Comment, 
du  N.  T.  230  ;  Clericus,  Quaest.  Huron,  p.  493.  On  St.  Jerome’s  life  and 
works  see  Engelstoft,  Hieronymus ;  Amedee  Thierry,  St.  Jerome,  1867  ;  Zockler, 
Hieronymus,  1865. 

2  DeDoctr.  Christ,  ii.  16,  §  24-28,  §  42  ;  Ep.  137,  1.  He  was  the  first  to 
suggest  something  in  the  shape  of  a  Biblical  Dictionary,  id.  ib.  c.  19,  Trench, 
p.  15. 

3  Be  Civ.  Dei,  xiii.  21. 

4  Be  Ver.  Rel.  17,  §  34  ;  Enarr.  in  Ps.  lxxiii.  1.  See  Trench,  The  Sermon  on 
the  Mount,  p.  42.  His  system  of  “periods  ”  was  seized  by  the  later  Reformed 
Theology.  See  Be  Civ.  Dei,  xv.-xvii.,  where  he  speaks  of  seven  periods,  of 
which  the  creative  week  was  a  type.  This  is  the  first  attempt  to  treat  Old 
Testament  theology.  Oehler,  Thcol.  of  Old  Testament,  i.  26-30  (E.  T.). 

6  His  De  Boctr.  Christ,  is  practically  an  exegetical  treatise  [praeccpta  trac- 
tandarum  Scripturarum). 

6  Confess,  i.  13,  §  20  ;  14,  §  23  ;  xi.  3,  §  5  ;  Be  Docti .  Christ,  ii.  §  23  ; 
De  Trin.  iii.  1,  §  23.  This  is  admitted  even  by  his  Benedictine  editors,  and 
is  the  subject  of  severe  remarks  by  Walch,  Eibl.  Fatr.  352  ;  Rosenm.  Hist. 
Intcrpr.  iii.  404  ;  AYiner,  in  Gal.  p.  22  ;  but  see  a  more  favourable  view  in 
Trench,  l.c.  p.  20.  His  etymologies  are  terribly  weak. 

'  C.  Aclim.  iii.  4.  He  corrects  the  “  nulla  quae  illis  veteribus  libris  desint  ” 
into  <(paene  nulla  ”  in  the  Retract,  i.  22,  §  2  ;  comp.  Tert.  C.  Marc.  iv.  Such 


Ills  Versatility. 


on; 

*.Ot) 

He  actually  ventures  to  maintain  that  David  wrote  the 
whole  Psalter  but  sometimes  prefixed  to  a  Psalm  some 
other  name  which  he  considered  appropriate !  If  he 
puts  forth  his  best  strength  in  resisting  the  unworthy  view  of 
Jerome,  that  the  dispute  between  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  at 
Antioch  was  a  “  pious  collusion,”  he  exhibits  his  greatest 
weakness  in  the  opposition  which  he  offered  to  Jerome’s  new 
translation.1  In  the  former  controversy  he  showed  the  power 
of  insight,  in  the  latter  the  feebleness  of  traditionalism,  and  a 
total  absence  of  the  critical  faculty.  By  his  dialectic  skill 
and  speculative  curiosity  he  became  the  father  of  scholasticism, 
and  at  the  same  time  he  gave  an  impulse  to  the  mediaeval 
mystics  by  his  spiritual  ardour.2  His  ecclesiastical  tendencies 
helped  to  strengthen  the  hierarchy  of  Catholicism,  and  yet  the 
Jansenists  relied  on  his  writings  to  establish  their  doctrine  of 
grace,  and  more  than  any  Father  he  became  the  favourite 
doctor  of  the  Reformation  by  virtue  of  his  insistence  on  the 
sufficiency  and  perspicuity  of  Holy  Writ.3  In  all  respects  he 
exercised  a  creative  influence  over  future  ages,  but  it  would  be 
false  to  say  that  the  influence  was  in  all  respects  wholesome. 
To  him  are  due  in  no  small  degree  the  excesses  of  the  subtle 
and  systematising  spirit  of  the  schoolmen;  the  over-weening 
pretensions  of  sacerdotalism ;  the  extravagant  exaltation  of 
‘‘the  Church,”  as  represented  by  an  imperious  hierarchy; 
the  exaggerated  doctrine  of  total  human  depravity;  and 
above  all  the  bitter  spirit  of  theological  hatred  and  per¬ 
secution.  His  writings  became  the  Bible  of  the  Inquisition. 
His  name  was  adduced — and  could  there  be  a  more  terrible 
Nemesis  on  his  errors  ? — to  justify  the  murder  of  Servetus, 
to  sanction  the  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew,  to  countenance 
the  revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes.4  As  the  teacher  of 

views,  as  contrasted  with  the  Ep.  of  Barnabas,  show  the  strong  reaction 
against  the  Antitheses  of  Marcion. 

1  He  believed  in  the  inspiration  of  the  Seventy,  BcDoctr.  Christ,  ii.  §  22. 

2  Thus,  as  Liebner  points  out,  Hugo  of  St.  Victor  who  first  united  and 
reconciled  the  principles  of  scholasticism  and  mysticism,  was  called  Lingua 
Augustini,  and  Alter  Augustinus  (see  Trench,  p.  xii. ). 

3  “Scriptura  sacra  .  .  .  omnibus  accessibilis  quamvis  paucissimis  pene- 
trabilis.”  Ep.  137,  §  18.  “  Ut  exciperet  omnes  populari  sinu.”  Conf.  vi.  5,  §8. 

4  See  proofs  of  these  facts  in  Owen,  Evenings  with,  the  Sceptics,  ii.  211,  who 


236 


His  Defects . 


intolerance  he  has  flung  a  dark  shadow  across  the  Church  of 
Christ,  and  his  intolerance  was  mainly  the  result  of  his  views 
of  Scriptural  interpretation. 

The  exegesis  of  St.  Augustine  is  marked  by  the  most 
glaring  defects.  Almost  as  many  specimens  of  prolix 
puerility  and  arbitrary  perversion  can  be  adduced  from  his 
pages  as  from  those  of  his  least  gifted  predecessors.1  He 
was  warped  by  dogmatic  prepossessions.  He  laid  down  the  rule 
that  the  Bible  must  be  interpreted  with  reference  to  Church 
Orthodoxy,2  and  that  no  Scriptural  expression  can  be  out  of 
accordance  with  any  other.  He  therefore,  in  support  of  this 
view,  demanded  that  all  interpretation  should  be  panharmonic, 
and  he  helped  to  stereotype  the  current  misapplication  of  the 
phrase  “  the  analogy  of  faith!’  3  He  warns  us  against  the  fraud 
of  those  who  distort  the  meaning  of  isolated  texts,  yet  he  is  con¬ 
stantly  guilty  of  the  same  fraud.4  He  could  not  fail  to  observe 
the  human  element  in  Scripture,5  and  he  accounts  for  the 


quotes  Nourisson,  Philos,  de  St.  Aug.  ii.  181  ;  Flottes,  Etudes  sur  St.  Aug. 
p.  542.  The  Spanish.  Jesuits,  in  their  indictment  of  St.  Augustine  in  the 
seventeenth  century,  said  that  “his  sentiments  are  too  hard,  and  unworthy  of 
the  goodness  and  mercy  of  God/’ 

1  He  began  a  commentary  on  the  Romans,  but  after  devoting  a  whole  book 
to  the  salutation  alone,  found  that  it  would  be  too  laborious,  and  gave  it  up. 

2  De  Doctr.  Christ,  iii.  10  :  “  Scrip tura  non  asserit  nisi  fidem  catholicam.” 

Perhaps  the  most  startling  instance  of  the  crude  ecclesiasticism,  which  in¬ 
creased  as  Augustine  grew  older,  is  his  remark,  “  Ego  vero  Evangclio  non 
credcrem  nisi  me  Catholicae  Ecclesiae  commoverit  auctoritas.”  Ep.  c.  Munich. 
5,  §  6.  On  this  false  and  degrading  opinion  see  Ritter,  Gesch.  de  Philos,  vi. 
432.  “  Setting  forth  the  Church  us  the  way  to  Christ,”  says  Bishop  Ewing, 

“  instead  of  setting  forth  Christ  us  the  way  to  the  Church ,  has  been  a  fountain 
of  unnumbered  evils.”  St.  Augustine’s  reversal  of  the  true  order  of  things 
was  exposed  before  Luther’s  days  among  others  by  Marsilio  of  Padua  in  his 
Defensor '  Pads,  and  by  John  Wessel  (“Evangelio  credimus  et  propter 
Evangelium  Ecclesiae,  non  Evangelio  propter  Ecclesiam”).  See  Owen, 
Evenings  with  the  Sceptics ,  ii.  181. 

\  "A  Chrysostom  had  explained  the  phrase  rightly,  Horn,  in  Pom.  xii. 
“  Faith,  though  it  is  a  grace,  is  not  poured  forth  at  random  but  .  .  .  lettetli  as 
much  flow  as  it  may  find  the  vessel  that  is  brought  to  be  capable  of.” 

4  C.  Adimant.  xiv.  §2:  “  Istorum fraus qui  particulas  quasdam  e  Scripturis 
eligunt  quibus  decipiant  iinperitos,  non  connectentes  quae  supra  et  infra 
scripta  sunt,  ex  quibus  voluntas  et  intentio  scriptoris  possit  intelligi.  ”  Had  the 
warning  received  the  slightest  attention,  the  majority  of  the  texts  quoted  in 
party  controversy  would  be  seen  to  be  wholly  inapplicable.  But  Augustine 
was  inevitably  false  to  his  own  rule  because  he  had  to  reconcile  the  teaching 
of  Christ  with  all  that  the  Church  taught  in  the  fourth  century.  See 
Neander,  iii.  510. 

5  De  Cons.  Evang.  ii.  12,  24,  28,  66,  &c. 


237 


His  Exegesis. 

variations  in  the  narrative  of  the  Evangelists  on  purely  human 
principles  ; 1  and  yet  he  uses  the  irreverent,  misleading,  and 
wholly  unscriptural  phrase,  that  the  sacred  writers  were  “  pens 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.’ 2  He  held  that  whatever  was  revealed 
mysteriously  and  enigmatically  in  one  part  of  Scripture  was 
revealed  clearly  in  another  part,3  yet  fails  to  see  that  there 
could  he  nothing  of  real  or  independent  value  in  the  in¬ 
cessantly  wavering  interpretations  of  dim  enigmas.  After  all 
his  judicious  theories  he  makes  his  exegesis  the  facile  slave 
of  his  personal  theology. 

In  the  writings  of  St.  Augustine  we  see  the  constant  flashes 
of  genius,  and  the  rich  results  of  insight  and  experience,  which 
have  given  them  their  power  over  the  minds  of  many  genera¬ 
tions.  But  these  merits  cannot  save  his  exes'etic  writings 
from  the  charge  of  being  radically  unsound.  Snatching  up 
the  old  Philonian  and  Rabbinic  rule  which  had  been  repeated 
for  so  many  generations,  that  everything  in  Scripture  which 
appeared  to  be  unorthodox  or  immoral  must  be  interpreted 
mystically,  he  introduced  confusion  into  his  dogma  of  super¬ 
natural  inspiration  by  admitting  that  there  are  many  passages 
“  written  by  the  Holy  Ghost,”  which  are  objectionable  when 
taken  in  their  obvious  sense.4  He  also  opened  the  door  to 
arbitrary  fancy.5  From  the  intolerable  prolixity  of  his  com¬ 
mentary  on  Genesis,  down  to  his  voluminous  remarks  on  many 
books  of  the  New  Testament,  we  find  incessant  instances  of 
that  futile  method  which  evacuated  the  Bible  of  a  significance 
infinitely  precious,  in  order  to  substitute  for  its  real  lessons  the 
thinnest  commonplaces  of  homiletic  and  dogmatic  edification. 
By  his  acceptance  of  the  rules  of  Tichonius  he  adopted  a 
system  of  tropology  in  which  “  leaven  ”  might  everywhere 

1  “  Inspiratus  a  Deo  sed  tamen  homo,”  in  Joann,  tract.  1,  §  1. 

2  Conf.  vii.  21,  Be  Gen.  ad  Litt.  v.  8  ;  see  Trench,  p.  50. 

3  Be  Boctr.  Christ,  iii.  §  37,  whence  it  passed  into  the  Summa  of  St.  Thomas 
i.  Qu.  1,  Art.  10. 

4  Be  Boctr.  Christ,  iii.  §  14  :  “  Qiiidquid  in  sermone  divino  neque  ad  monnn 
honcstatcm  ncqrcc  ad  JUlci  veritatem  proprie  referri  potest  figuratum  esse 
cognoscas.” 

5  He  adopts  the  unfortunate  notion  that  all  sorts  of  explanations  must  be 
admissible,  because  the  Holv  Spirit  must  have  foreseen  them  {id.  ib.  32).  The 
heretics  might  have  urged  the  same  plea. 


238 


His  Use  of  Allegory. 

stand  either  for  “  truth  ”  or  for  “  wickedness,”  and  “  a  lion  ” 
either  for  “the  Devil”  or  for  “  Christ.”  In  the  narrative  of 
the  Fall  the  fig-leaves  become  hypocrisy,  and  the  coats  of  skins 
mortality,  and  the  four  rivers  of  Eden  the  four  cardinal 
virtues.  In  the  story  of  the  Deluge  the  Ark  is  pitched 
within  and  without  with  pitch  to  show  the  safety  of  the 
Church  from  inward  and  outward  heresies.  The  drunken¬ 
ness  of  Noah  is,  shocking  to  relate,  “a  figure  of  the  death 
and  passion  of  Christ.”1  The  Books  of  Kings  are  distorted 
iuto  a  prophecy  as  much  as  a  history.  Nor  is  it  only  the 
Old  Testament  history  wThich  is  throughout  treated  as  an 
allegory.2  Poetry  and  prophecy  are  similarly  handled,  till 
even  Augustine’s  contemporaries  were  driven  to  complain.3 

Thus  the  exquisite  beauty  and  lyric  tenderness  of  Psalm  civ. 
is  evaporated  at  a  touch.  “  The  sun  which  Tcnoweth  his  going 
down  ”  becomes  Christ,  who  was  aware  of  His  own  death ; 
“the  beasts  that  get  them  away  together  ”  become  persecutors 
who  dare  not  show  themselves  in  the  days  of  Christ’s  prosperity. 
If  the  Psalmist  says,  “  I  laid  me  down,  and  slept ,  and  rose  up 
again,”  Augustine  asks  whether  any  one  can  be  so  senseless 
(it a  desipit )  as  to  suppose  that  “  the  prophet  ”  would  have 
made  so  trivial  a  statement,  unless  the  sleep  intended  had 
been  the  Death,  and  the  awakening  the  Resurrection  of 
Christ  ! 4  Even  the  Gospels  are  not  safe  from  this  faithless 
invasion  of  predetermined  dogmatism.5  “No  sober  person,” 
says  one  writer,  “  can  believe  that  our  Lord  really  had  his  feet 
anointed  by  a  woman  with  precious  ointment,  as  luxurious 
and  wicked  men  are  wont  to  do  at  feasts  and  the  like,  which 
we  detest.”  6  When  once  the  principle  of  allegory  is  admitted, 
when  once  we  start  with  the  rule  that  vdiole  passages  and 
books  of  Scripture  say  one  thing  when  they  mean  another,  the 

1  Horn,  in  Gen.  13  §  3.  2  In  Ps-  cxxxvi.  3. 

3  De  Civ.  Dei,  xv.  20  ;  xvi.  1. 

4  Enarr.  in  Ps.  ciii.  Even  Sixtus  Senensis  says  that  since  Augustine  knew 
neither  Hebrew  nor  Greek,  “Necesse  fuit  ilium  a  vero  aeproprio  literae  sensu 
ad  extortas  allegorias  deflectere  ”  {Bill.  Sand.  p.  257). 

5  For  a  had  instance  of  exegesis  warped  by  dogmatics  see  Augustine’s 
remarks  on  Christ’s  blessing  little  children  in  De  Peecat.  Remiss,  i.  19. 

6  “Aliud  dicitur  ut  (!)  aliud  intelligatur.”  See  De  Doctr.  Christ,  iii. 
§§  32-40.  St.  Augustine  laughs  at  the  allegorical  arguments  of  the  Donatists 


The  Allegoric  Method. 


239 


reader  is  delivered  bound  band  and  foot  to  the  caprice  of  the 
interpreter.  He  can  be  sure  of  absolutely  nothing  except 
what  is  dictated  to  him  by  the  Church,  and  in  all  ages  the 
authority  of  “  the  Church  ”  has  been  falsely  claimed  for  the 
presumptuous  tyranny  of  false  prevalent  opinions.  In  the  days 
of  Justin  Martyr  and  of  Origen  Christians  had  been  driven  to 
allegory  by  an  imperious  necessity.  It  was  the  only  means 
known  to  them  by  which  to  meet  the  shock  which  wrenched 
the  Gospel  free  from  the  fetters  of  Judaism.  They  used  it 
to  defeat  the  crude  literalism  of  fanatical  heresies ;  or  to 
reconcile  the  teachings  of  philosophy  with  the  truths  of  the 
Gospel.  But  in  the  days  of  Augustine  the  method  had 
degenerated  into  an  artistic  method  of  displaying  ingenuity 
and  supporting  ecclesiasticism.  It  had  become  the  resource 
of  a  faithlessness  which  declined  to  admit,  of  an  ignorance 
‘which  failed  to  appreciate,  and  of  an  indolence  which  re¬ 
fused  to  solve  the  real  difficulties  in  which  the  sacred  book 
abounds.  It  enabled  would-be  teachers  to  fill  whole  volumes 
with  the  semblance  of  teaching.  AVith  others  it  became  the 
ready  means  for  establishing  Church  dogmas  and  priestly 
traditions,  and  so  of  making  Scripture  an  oracle  which 
answered  them  according  to  their  idols,  and  an  echo  which 
returned  to  them  the  disguised  utterance  of  their  own 
imaginations.1 

Unhappily  for  the  Church,  unhappily  for  any  real  ap¬ 
prehension  of  Scripture,  the  allegorists,  in  spite  of  protest,2 
were  completely  victorious.  The  School  of  Antioch  was 

who  from  the  words  “  in  meridie ”  (“at  noon  ”)  in  Cant.  i.  7,  argued  that  the 
Church  was  only  in  the  south,  and  defended  the  rebaptising  of  heretics  from 
the  strange  mistranslation  of  the  Yulg.  in  Ps.  cxli.  5.  But  his  own  allegories 
are  quite  as  baseless. 

1  On  Augustine’s  work  as  a  commentator  see  Klausen,  Aurel.  Augustinus, 

S.  S.  intcrprcs.  Abp.  Trench,  Aug.  as  an  interpreter  of  Scripture  (Sermon  on 
the  Mount)  ;  Breithaupt,  Institutio  hermcn.  ex  Aug.  libris  conquisita  ;  Kilon, 
1605.  His  theoretical  rules  were  excellent,  if  he  had  but  been  faithful  to 
them.  Thus  he  says  :  1.  Script  urae  scopus  est  dilcctio  Dei.  2.  Codices  emen- 
dandi  sunt.  3.  We  must  decide  whether  the  sense  is  literal  or  mystic.  4. 
We  must  consider  the  context.  5.  Obscura  per  apertiora  explicanda.  6. 
Geography,  &e.,  must  he  studied.  7.  The  original  is  important  (but  the  LXX. 
is  to  be  preferred  even  to  the  Hebrew  !).  8.  Distingue  tempora  ct  concordabis 

Scripturas,  Ac. 

2  See  llosenmuller,  iii.  147. 


240  Prevalence  of  Allegory. 

discredited  by  anathemas.  Origen  was  indeed  attainted 
with  equal  violence,  but  his  exegetical  principles  had  already 
taken  deep  root  alike  in  the  East  and  in  the  West.  Theodore 
and  Theodoret  were  to  a  certain  extent  quoted  m  Glosses 
and  Catenae,  but  their  chief  influence  was  confined  to  the 
churches  of  the  Nestorians,  and  though  glimmerings  of  their 
method  appear  here  and  there,1  it  received  no  development, 
and  we  soon  descend  to  allegorical  dictionaries  of  the  three 
fold  sense,  like  that  of  Eucherius,2  to  the  secondhandness  of 
Cassiodoras  (t  562),  and  the  interminable  tedium  of  Gregory 
the  Great  (t  604).  The  thirty-five  books  of  Moralia  on 
the  Book  of  Job,  by  Gregory,  awoke  the  intense  admiration 
of  the  Middle  Ages,  but  to  any  real  knowledge  of  the  sacred 
poem  itself  they  contribute  nothing.  Such  value  as  they 
possess  is  to  be  found  solely  in  the  masses  of  allegorical  and 
homiletic  commonplace  which  furnished  ready  materials  lor 
the  sermons  of  a  thousand  years.3  We  trust  that  hundreds 
of  those  sermons  may  have  been  found  rich  m  spiritual 
blessing  by  those  who  listened  to  them,  but  their  instruc¬ 
tiveness  was  derived  exclusively  from  the  simple  facts  _  of 
the  Gospel  which  they  taught,  or  the  moral  truths  in  which 
there  could  be  no  ambiguity :  they  derive  no  particle .  of 
additional  value  from  the  so-called  exegesis  which,  being 
based  on  an  invented  hypothesis,  a  supposed  tradition,  and 
an  unwarrantable  system,  was  no  better  than  a  house  built 

upon  the  sand.  .  .  , 

But  let  us  once  more  thank  God  that,  even  m  the  study 

of  Scripture,  correct  exegesis  is  of  less  importance  than  the 
saving  apprehension  of  a  few  great  truths.  In  understanding 

1  As  in  the  anonymous  comment  on  Joel  printed  among  the  works  of  Ru- 

rfltteome1')1  bVcon.pared  To  Moctae  of 

“o^nT’rT  he"  “5 

Grundriss,  p.  45  ;  Walch,  Ketzereyen,  iv .  519. 

2  l  ucherius,  Liber  formularum  spirituals  intdhgcntiae. 

s  See  some  severe  remarks  on  the  Moralia  in  Hampden  Bampt.Led.  p:  2  /  o. 
C.reTT knew  neither  Greek  nor  Hebrew,  and  in  ins  allegorical  expositions 
Toh°renresents  Christ,  his  sons  the  clergy,  his  three  daughters  the  thiee 
dhesPof  the  laity  who  are  to  worship  the  Trinity,  his  friends  the  heretics, 
the  oxen  and  she-asscs  the  heathen  (because  of  Is.  1.  3)  Ac.  Ac.. 


The  Fathers. 


241 


its  most  essential  messages  we  have  little  need  of  the  labours 
of  the  commentator.  Those  messages  are  less  intelligible  to 
learning  than  to  faith.  If  in  exegesis  the  Fathers  were  often 
led  astray  by  deficient  knowledge  and  mistaken  principles, 
on  the  other  hand  the  minds  of  the  best  of  them  were 
“  animated,  informed,  and  kindled  by  the  substance,  the  pur¬ 
pose,  and  the  spirit  of  the  sacred  books.”  “  There  is,”  says 
Dean  Church,  “  in  these  writers  a  kind  of  living  contact  of 
their  whole  being  with  the  inspired  words.  Their  whole  soul 
is  stirred  and  penetrated  with  words  which  to  them  are  mani¬ 
festly  full  of  the  things  and  the  spirit  of  God.  Their  reading 
leaves  them  aflame  with  the  enthusiasm  of  admiration, 
delight,  awe,  hope,  analogous  in  a  higher  degree  to  the  feeling 
which  a  glorious  prospect,  or  a  magnificent  passage  of  poetry 
or  oratory,  leaves  on  the  mind  which  takes  it  in,  and  is 
alive  to  its  complete  meaning  and  effect.  This  is  the  secret 
of  their  excellence  and  value,”  if  not  “  as  commentators,”  yet 
as  that  which  is  even  higher  and  more  important,  as  moral 
and  spiritual  teachers  of  mankind. 

And  when  we  think  of  them  personally,  when  we  recall  the 
heroic  fortitude  of  Justin,  the  ardent  zeal  of  Cyprian,  the 
dauntless  courage  with  which  Athanasius  faced  the  world  ; 
— when  we  think  of  Origen,  banished,  excommunicated, 
racked  by  torture,  and  dragging  from  prison  his  aged  frame 
and  dislocated  limbs,  “  till  the  weary  wheels  of  life  stood 
still ;  ” — when  we  think  of  the  tears  and  conversion  of 
Augustine,  of  Jerome’s  struggle  for  self-conquest  in  his 
cell  at  Bethlehem,  of  Ambrose  repelling  his  Emperor  from 
the  gates  of  his  Cathedral  because  his  hands  were  red  with 
the  blood  of  massacre  ; — when  we  recall  the  picture  ot 
Chrysostom  dying  in  his  cruel  exile  with  his  favourite  words 
tco  0€m  iravrcov  eveica  upon  his  lips ; — when  we  recall 
the  profound  thoughts  and  eloquent  exhortations  of  many 
of  the  Fathers — the  many  high  examples  which  they  set  of 
holiness  in  life,  and  of  courage  even  unto  death — we  give  to 
them  the  hearty  offering  of  our  honour  and  esteem.  We 
say  of  them,  with  St.  Chrysostom,  “  Oh  blessed  and  happy 

R 


242 


The  Fathers. 


men  whose  names  are  in  the  Book  of  Life.”  1  We  cannot 
elevate  them  into  idols,  or  accept  their  utterances  as  oracles; 
but  we  look  up  to  them  with  love  and  reverence,  as  to  our 
elder  brothers  in  the  great  family  of  God. 


1  See  the  fine 
ad  fin. 


passage  quoted  by  Bishop  Jeremy  Taylor, 


“Via  Intclligcntiac,” 


6  yap  ttXXa  pev  ayoptuav  rporros,  er epa  be  bv  \eyei  aypaivav,  encovvpcos 
'AXKrjyopia  KaXelrai.— HERACLIDES  Ponticus,  Allegg.  Homer. 

ore  fopaC*  ra  yperepa  kcl\  <a\bs  elxeu,  rjvUa  ro  pev  nepirrov  rovra  kcu 
KareyXcoTTLcrpevov  r?,s  BeoXoylas  Ka\  evreXvov  ov be  vapobov  etXev  eis  ras 
Betas  auXaf. — Greg.  Naz.  Oi  at.  xxi. 

«  Melius  est  dubitare  de  occultis,  quam  litigare  de  incertis.  —Aug. 
De  Gen.  ad  lit.  c.  v. 

«  Philosophia  tua  te  vexat.”— Luther  to  Melanchthon. 

“  That  which  bv  right  exposition  buildeth  up  Christian  faith,  being 
misconstrued,  breedeth  error  ;  between  true  and  false  construction  the 
difference  reason  must  show.”— Hooker,  Eccl.  Pol.  m.  §  8. 

«  Theologia  haec  Scholastica,  quanta  quanta  est,  magis  Ethmca  quam 
Christiana  est,  non  ex  S.  Literis  hausta,  sed  ex  Aristotelis  Metapliysica 
consuta  et  conflata  ;  quae  multo  plus  habet  nxarum  philosophicarum 
quam  Christianae  pietatis. ’’-Grotius,  De  studus  mstituendis  (1645), 

p.  240. 

“  Deliver  me  .  .  .  from  unhealthy  enquiries  and  interminable  dis¬ 
putes.” — Prayer  of  Bishop  Andrewes. 

“  The  plague  of  the  Church  for  above  a  thousand  years  has  been  the 
enlarging  our  creed,  and  making  more  fundamentals  than  God  ever 
made”— Baxter. 

“  L’ignorance  vaut  beaucoup  mieux  que  cette  fausse  science  qui  fait 
cjue  Ton  s’imagine  savoir  ce  qu'on  ne  sait  pas .’’-Arnauld,  Log.que  de 
Port  Royal. 

«  Eine  Spekulation  auf  diirrer  Heide,  eine  Dialektik  ohne  das  erforder- 
liche  Materiale  der  Kenntniss,  ein  Formalismus  ohne  Julie  des  Inhaltcs 
und  ohne  Freiheit  der  Bewegungen.”— Klausen,  Herman,  p.  190. 


LECTURE  Y. 


SCHOLASTIC  EXEGESIS. 


“  Guard  that  which  is  committed  unto  thee,  turning  away  from  .  .  .  the 
.ntitheses  of  the  knowledge  which  is  falsely  so  called  ;  which  some  professing 
lave  missed  the  mark  concerning  the  faith.  —1  llM.  vi.  -u. 


Gregory  the  Great  died  in  tlie  year  604.  With  him  the 
age  of  theological  originality  ceased  for  five  centuries  ;  and  toi 
four  centuries  more  the  study  of  the  Bible  was  fettered  by  nar¬ 
row  restrictions,  and  misdirected  in  unprofitable  efforts.  We 
approach  the  subject  of  mediaeval  exegesis  with  every  desire 
to  judge  it  in  the  kindliest  spirit ;  but  we  are  compelled  to 
say  that  during  the  Dark  Ages,  from  the  seventh  to  the  twelfth 
century,  and  during  the  scholastic  epoch,  from  the  twelfth  to 
the  sixteenth,  there  are  but  a  few  of  the  many  who  toiled  in 
this  field  who  added  a  single  essential  principle,  or  furnished 
a  single  original  contribution  to  the  explanation  of  the 
Word  of  God.1  During  these  nine  centuries  we  find  very 
little  except  the  “glimmerings  and  decays  ”  of  patristic 
exposition.  Much  of  the  learning  which  still  continued  to 
exist  was  devoted  to  something  which  was  meant  for  exegesis,^ 
yet  not  one  writer  in  hundreds  showed  any  true  conception  ot 


1  The  word  o-YoXarm/cbs  is  first  found  in  a  letter  of  Theophrastus  ct-p.  Diog. 
Laert  v.  20 ;  Scholastics  in  Petronius.  In  the  Aareia  of  the  1  seudo- 
Hierocles  it  is  surrounded  with  grotesque  associations.  But  it  is  perhaps 
simplest  to  derive  the  word  “scholasticism”  from  the  schools  of  Chailemdgne 
See  Haureau,  Philos.  Scholastique,  l.  7  ;  Brucker,  Hist.  Phil.  m.  1 1  h  Li 
Art.  13  the  Schoolmen  ate  called  “  the  School  Authors."  On  the  collection 
between  Patristic  and  Scholastic  systems,  see  Ueberweg,  Hist,  of  Philos. 

i.  262. 


246 


Decadence  of  Knowledge. 

what  exegesis  really  implies.  Sometimes,  indeed,  they  repeat 
correct  principles  borrowed  from  Jerome  and  Augustine,  but 
in  practice  they  abandon  these  principles  as  soon  as  they 
are  enunciated,  and  give  us  folio  volumes  of  dogma,  morality, 
and  system,  which  profess  to  be  based  on  Scripture,  but 
have  for  the  most  part  no  real  connection  with  the  passages 
to  which  they  are  attached.1 

The  Papal  system  had  established  a  secure  despotism  over 
the  minds  of  men.  I  he  sources  of  all  Christian  truth  were 
supposed  to  be  furnished  by  Scripture  and  tradition ;  and  the 
Church— by  which  was  mainly  meant  the  Pope— was  held  to 
be  the  infallible  interpreter  of  both.  In  the  seventh  century 
the  whole  fabric  of  society  still  reeled  with  the  terrible  and 
continuous  shocks  which  it  had  received  from  the  storms  of 
barbarian  invasion,  when  Goths,  Yandals,  Sarmatians,  Gepidae, 
Alani,  Heruli,  Huns,  Suevi,  Saxons,  and  Burgundians,  had 
poured  themselves  upon  the  West.  Learning  naturally 
perished  in  the  storm.  “  Woe  to  our  days,”  exclaimed  Gregory 
of  Tours,  “  for  the  study  of  letters  has  perished  from  us.” 2 
When  Didier,  Archbishop  of  Vienne,  tried  to  reintroduce  the 
teaching  of  grammar,  Gregory  the  Great,  the  most  fertile  and 
eloquent  moralist  of  his  dreary  age,  in  words  which  irresist¬ 
ibly  remind  us  of  what  Jack  Cade  says  to  Lord  Saye  and 
Sele  in  Shakespeare’s  Henry  VI.,  wrote  to  him,  “I  can 
scarcely  mention  without  shame  that  your  Fraternity  ex¬ 
plains  grammar  to  certain  persons.  What  a  deadly  and 
heinous  fault !”  3  Fortunatus  (t  609),  though  a  leading  poet 

Homiletics  have  been  to  an  incredible  extent  the  Phylloxera  Vcistatrix  of 
exegesis,  and  preachers  with  their  habit  of  thrusting  into  texts  an  endless 
variety  of  commonplaces  which  have  no  connexion  with  them,  have  become 
privileged  misinterpreted.  they  have  ploughed  with  the  unequally-yoked  ox 
and  ass  of  science,  and  sermon-making,  and  made  texts  an  excuse  for  saying 

this  or  that  as  it  pleased  them,  with  no  thought  of  the  real  meaning  of 
words.  ° 

2  Greg.  Tur.  Hist.  Franc.  Prooem.  Compare  Lupus,  Ep.  36  (Migne,  vol. 

(  xix.).  iv mg  Alfred  did  not  know  one  monk  south  of  the  Thames  who  could 
translate  the  Breviary. 

Sine  veiecundia  memorare  non  possumus  fraternitatem  tuam  Grammati- 
cam  qmbusdam  exponere  !  .  .  .  Quam  grave  nefandumque  !”  Greg.  M.  Epp. 
xi.  54.  bo  Jack  Cade  in  Henry  VI.  pt.  ii.  act  iv.  sc.  7  :  “  Thou  hast  most 
traitorously  corrupted  the  youth  of  the  realm  in  erecting  a  grammar-school,” 
Ac.  W  e  must,  however,  bear  in  mind  that  Gregory  regarded  the  end  of  the 


247 


Work  of  Charlemagne. 


of  the  age,  confesses  not  only  that  he  had  never  read  Plato 
or  Aristotle,  but  not  even  Hilary,  Ambrose,  or  Augustine. 

“  Many,”  wrote  Ambrose  Antpert  in  his  comment  on  the 
Apocalypse,  “  say  that  this  is  no  time  to  discuss  Scripture. 
The  eighth  century  was  the  most  ignorant,  the  darkest,  the 
most  barbarous,  that  France  had  ever  seen.1  There  was 
everywhere  confusion  and  chaos,  national,  social,  and  political. 
The  energies  of  men  were  absorbed  in  the  attempt  to  found 
a  new  order  upon  the  crumbling  ruins  of  ancient  civilisation. 

Charlemagne,  having  seen  that  schools  and  learning  still 
existed  in  Italy,  wished  to  revive  them  in  his  own  kingdom, 
and  about  787  wrote  to  the  Bishops  the  circular  letter  which 
Ampere  calls  “In  charts  coustituante'  de  In  pcnsSe  v  wdciue. 
Then  it  was  that  the  teaching  of  the  Trivium  and  the 
Quadrivium  began.2  As  there  was  no  diffusion  of  knowledge, 
all  education  became  ecclesiastical,  all  piety  monastic  in  type. 
There  was  a  monotonous  and  absolute  ascendency  of  sacei  dotal 
authority.  And  how  could  there  be  anything  but  an  ever- 
deepening  misinterpretation  of  Scripture  when  so  few  Christian 
interpreters  possessed  even  a  smattering  of  Hebiew ,  when 
Greek  was  but  little  known  ;  when  men  went  to  Scripture, 
not  to  seek  truth,  but  to  find  their  own  dogmas ;  when, 
in  spite  of  a  nominal  idolatry  for  the  sacred  writings,  men 
turned  them  into  plastic  enigmas;  when  the  interpreter 


world  as  being  “in  actual  progress,”  and  thought  that  the  light  of  eternity 
was  already  piercing  the  gloom  of  time.  Dialog,  iv.  41.  Gregory,  m  ns 
thirty-five  books  of  Jporalia  (“  ein  schweres,  ein  unausdehnliches  bucli  ) 
thinks  it  “unworthy*  to  bind  the  heavenly  utterances  by  the  rules  ot 
Donatus.”  He  says,  “Primum  quidem  fundamenta  Histonae  ponimus  ; 
deinde  per  significatorem  typicam  in  arcein  fidei  fabricam  mentis  engimus  , 
ad  extremum  quoque  per  moralitatis  gratiam  quasi  superducto  aedihcium 

colore  vestimus.”  Dp.  ad  Leandrum. 

1  Hist.  Lit.  dc  France ,  ii.  For  the  facts  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  para- 

oraphs  see  Haureau,  Hist,  dc  la  Philos.  Scholastiquc,  i.  1-16.  11  a  lam, 

Middle  Ages,  in.  418.  Bouquet,  Per.  Gallic.  Script,  vol.  v.  Even  Alcum 
grew  up  to  disparage  as  “polluting”  the  study  ol  \irgil.  Vita  (Migne)  , 

Maitland,  Dark  Ages,  p.  179.  _  .  .  , 

2  The  three  arts  of  grammar,  dialectics,  and  rhetoric,  and  the  fom  s<  lewp 
of  arithmetic,  geometry,  music,  and  astronomy.  See  J.  Bass  Mul  linger,  I  he 
Schools  of  Charles  the'  Great  (1877).  Brucker,  in.  9o7.  Haureau  U.  21) 
attributes  the  classification  to  Martianus  Capella,  but  it  is  as  old  as  Augustine 
(Dc  Online  13).  See  J.  Gow,  Short  Hist,  of  Greek  Mathematics ,  p.  /  2  (1884). 
Leon  Maitre,  Lcs  ticolcs  de  V Occident ;  Monnier,  Alcuin  et  son  influence. 
Manset,  Art.  Logic.  Pudimenta ,  p.  28. 


248 


The  Venerable  Bede. 


set  himself  practically  above  the  text  by  making  it  answer 
him  in  accordance  with  his  own  idols,  or  not  at  all  ? 

The  seventh  and  four  following  centuries  were  the  age  of 
sheer  compilation,  in  the  form,  first  of  excerpts,  and  then  of 
glosses.1  J ohn  of  Damascus  was  labouring  at  commentaries  in 
the  Eastern  Church  at  the  same  time  that  Bede  was  devoting 

O 

fifty-eight  continuous  years  to  them  in  the  Western  ;  but  both 
are  compilers.2  The  Venerable  Bede  (fi  735)  was  “  a  man 
whom  it  is  easier  to  admire  than  to  extol  as  he  deserved;”3  yet 
though  quite  capable  by  his  genius  and  learning  of  exercising 
an  independent  criticism,4  he  only  professes  to  collect  passages 
from  the  Fathers,  with  the  occasional  addition  of  a  few  words 
of  his  own.  In  his  preface  to  his  comment  on  St.  Luke,  he 
says  that  it  consists  of  extracts  woven  together  from  Ambrose, 
Augustine,  Jerome,5  and  other  Fathers,  the  authorship  of  each 
clause  being  marked  by  the  initial  of  the  writer’s  name 
which  he  entreats  copyists  not  to  omit.6  Being  thus  de¬ 
pendent  he  is  hopelessly  led  astray.  He  accepts  as  important 
the  baseless  rules  of  Tichonius.  Jerome  had  said  that 
Luke  being  a  physician  provides  medicine  for  the  soul  also, 
and  this  remark  furnished  Bede  with  a  sufficient  reason  for 
a  constant  introduction  of  allegory  into  the  explanation  of 

1  Excerpts  or  Catenae  (aeTpai,  avWoyal,  ep/jLTjvetcov  iirirojuai),  like  those  of 
Cassiodorns,  Primasius,  Sedulius,  Floras  Magister,  Bemigius,  and  in  the  Greek 
Church  those  of  John  of  Damascus,  were  extremely  numerous.  Second¬ 
hand  commentaries,  like  those  of  Procopius  of  Gaza,  Isidore  of  Seville, 
Lede,  Claudius  Turinensis,  Angelomus,  and  Pseudo-Haymo  abounded  and 
multiplied.  The  commentary  of  Chr.  Druthmar  on  St.  Matthew  is  an  im¬ 
provement  on  most  of  these  ;  yet  in  commenting  on  “  Liber  generation is  Jesu 
Christi ”  he  tells  us  “liber”  also  means  “free,”  and  “  the  bark  of  the  tree  ;  ” 
and  he  derives  panis  from  tt av.  “Scripturi  maxime  quae  in  Patrum  exemplis 
invenimus  hinc  inde  collecta  ponere  curabimus,  sed  et  nonnulla  propi'ia  ubi 
opportunum  videbitur  interponemvs”  (Prol.  in  Marc.). 

Rede,  Mist.  Eccl.  Introd.  On  John  Damascened  commentaries  see  Lupton 
pp.  156  sq.  r  ’ 

3  'William  of  Malmesbury. 

*  -ts  he  shows,  especially  in  his  lletractationes. 

0  “  rlje  teaching  of  the  Latin  Church  rested  on  the  authority  of  three 
1  athers— Ambrose,  Jerome,  Augustine.  From  the  first  she  derived  her 
conception  of  sacerdotal  authority ;  from  the  second  her  attachment  to 
monasticism  ;  irom  the  third  her  dogmatic  theology  ;  and  to  these  three 
conceptions,  the  most  remarkable  phenomena  in  European  History  may 
undoubtedly  be  referred.”— J.  B.  Mullinger,  The  University  of  Cambridge  L 
p.  3.  Mil  man,  Latin  Christianity ,  Bk.  ii.  c.  4. 

6  They  have,  however,  done  so. 


249 


Exegesis  of  Bede. 

a  book  exquisitely  simple  and  transparently  historical.  In 
Old  Testament  comments  he  revels  in  the  Philonian  and 
Origenistic  method.  Laban  means  “whitened,”  and  he  is 
therefore  a  symbol  of  the  devil  transformed  into  an  Angel  of 
Light ;  he  also  represents  the  world  pursuing  the  elect.  J acob 
took  away  his  daughters — the  daughters,  that  is,  of  the  world 
and  the  devil — when  Christ  won  Himself  a  Church  from  the 
Gentiles.  Mandrakes,  he  says,  are  a  kind  of  tree  in  the 
shape  of  a  man,  except  that  they  have  no  head.  They, 
therefore,  represent  humanity  without  Christ.  In  the  be¬ 
ginning  of  Samuel  the  Vulgate  has  Fuit  vir  units,  et  nomen 
ejus  Elmna.  Bede  makes  a  mystery  of  the  unus,  and  says 
that  it  points  in  the  first  place  to  Christ ;  next  it  implies  the 
unity  of  the  elect ;  and  thirdly  it  points  to  a  man  who  was 
not  double-minded.  What  is  it  to  us  monks,  he  asks,  to  be 
told  that  Elkanah  had  two  wives  ? 1  If  we  only  draw  such 
“  old  things  ”  as  the  literal  sense  out  of  Scripture,  we  get  no 
spiritual  doctrine ;  but  when  we  understand  it  allegorically, 
Elkanah  is  our  Lord,  and  his  two  wives  are  the  Synagogue 
and  the  Church.  Any  one,  he  says,  who  knows  how  to 
interpret  the  Book  of  Tobit  allegorically,  sees  the  inner 
sense  to  be  as  superior  to  the  literal  as  fruit  is  to  leaves.- 
Thus  in  the  works  of  Bede  we  find  ourselves  for  the  most 
part  among  the  sediments  of  patristic  exposition.  All  the 
writers  of  this  school  speak  like  Bede  of  their  pusillitcts 
and  their  temeriias ,  and  their  ingeniolum ,  and  profess  to  write 
only  for  the  rudis  lector.  Of  the  Fathers,  from  which  they 
so  indiscriminately  borrowed,  they  can  only  speak  “with 
bated  breath  and  whispering  humbleness.”  3 

Similarly  in  reading  Alcuin  (t  804),  we  find  that  the 
Intei'Togationes  with  which  he  is  occupied  are  olten  as  idle  as 

1  Such  remarks  show  that  allegory  was  the  daughter  of  rationalism.  So 
Sixtus  Senensis  asks  “  Quid  juvat  scire  antiquorum  Judaeorum  bella  et  sedi- 
tiones?”  and  makes  this  a  potent  argument  for  allegorising.  Bikl.  Sand. 
( Dc  duplici  scnsu). 

-  “Si  quiseundem  allegorice  novit  interpretari  quantum  poma  foliis  tantum 
interiorem  ejus  sensum  videt  simplicitati  literae  praestare.” 

3  Bede  was  himself  reckoned  afterwards  among  the  Fathers.  William  of 
Conches  says,  “Non  est  fas  Bedae  v *1  cilicui  alii  sanctorum  Pntrum  contra- 
dicere”  (ap.  Cousin,  (Euvres  lned.  d' Abel.  p.  673). 


250 


31  aunts. 


the  Pesponsiones  are  valueless,  and  he,  too,  most  humbly 
prostrates  his  intellect  at  the  feet  of  the  Fathers — Cautissimo 
stylo  providens  ne  quid  contrarium  Patrum  sensibus  ponerem. 
The  works  of  Haymo  of  Halberstadt,  and  Rabanus  Maurus 
(t  856)  are  equally  servile,  and  the  latter  unconsciously 
exposed  the  futility  of  the  allegoric  method  by  the  alphabetic 
register  ( Liber  Alley  or  iarum),  in  which  he  tried  to  reduce  it 
to  system.1  He  tells  us  that  he  compiled  his  commentary 
on  the  Epistles  from  eleven  Latin  and  three  Greek  Fathers 
{Prol.  inMatth .).  Paschasius  Radbertus  (f  865)  boasts  that  he 
“  adhered  to  the  footsteps  ”  of  Gregory,  &c.,  and  never  deviated 
from  them.  How  significant  is  the  remark  of  Notker  of 
St.  Gall  (f912),  “In  Matthaeo  Hieronymus  sufficiat  tibi, 
in  Marco  pedissequo  Matthaei  Baeda  pedissequus  Hieronymi.” 

Doubtless  such  compilations  had  a  certain  use  when 
nothing  better  was  to  be  had,  and  when  books  were  few  and 
not  easily  obtained ;  but  they  tended  even  in  their  own  day 
to  stereotype  false  positions  and  check  original  study.2  They 
were  made  without  criticism  or  choice  on  the  most  haphazard 
principles.  They  gyrate  round  a  narrow  circle  of  recognised 
interpreters.  Being  dependent  on  the  chance  of  translations 
for  the  few  Greek  Fathers  whom  the  writers  consulted,  they 
wholly  ignore  the  masterly  labours  of  the  Antiochene  ex¬ 
positors.  They  quote  mutilated  fragments  of  works  often 
spurious,  and  these  fragments  are  frequently  misunderstood. 
The  result  is  a  mosaic  of  dubious  and  irreconcilable  opinions. 
For  modern  times  they  might  have  preserved  passages  which 
would  have  been  otherwise  lost ;  but  the  quotations  are  so 
erroneous,  and  so  often  derived  second,  third,  and  fourth  hand 
from  bad  translations  and  supposititious  works,  that  even  for 
this  purpose  they  are  of  scarcely  any  use.3 

1  Rabanus  Maurus  is  chiefly  great  as  the  “ primus  Germaniae  pr acceptor  P 
not  as  an  Exegete. 

2  A  distinction  must  be  made  between  glosses  ( glossae ,  Postillae,  iir iro/nal, 
ffvWoyal,  awayooyal  kpjJL^veicbv,  e£riyricreis  av\\eye7aai,  &C. )  and  the  later 
Catenae  proper,  which  chiefly  occur  from  the  ninth  to  the  sixteenth  century. 
See  Fritzsche  in  Herzog,  s.v.  Exeget.  Collections.  Cramer,  Praef.  in  Oaten. 
New  Testament. 

3  The  Quaestiones  of  Thotius  (t  890),  and  the  compilations  of  Procopius  of 
Gaza  (sixth  century),  of  Oecumenius  (tenth  century,  chiefly  from  Chrysostom), 


The  Glosses. 


251 


The  Glosses  whether  marginal  like  that  of  W  alafrid  Strabo 
(f  849),  or  interlinear  like  that  of  Anselm  of  Laon  (t  1117), 
are  of  a  still  lower  order  of  merit  than  the  exegetic  antho¬ 
logies.  Besides  being  compilations  they  were  heaped  together 
without  choice,  order,  or  criticism,  and  they  furnish  a  pro¬ 
miscuous  mass  of  literal,  moral,  and  mystic  fiagments, 
intermingled  with  grammatical  remarks  of  the  most 
elementary  character.1  With  an  “  alitor  or  potest  etiavi 
intelligi  ”  the  reader  is  often  left  to  choose  between  hetero¬ 
geneous  interpretations  logically  exclusive  of  each  other. 
Hermeneutic  principle  there  is  none.  When  Gisla  and 
Reetruda,  daughters  of  Charlemagne,  wrote  to  ask  Alcuin  for 
a  commentary  on  St.  John,  they  never  dreamed  of  asking  foi 
anything  original  hut  said  “  Collige  multorum  margaritas ” 
Yet  the  Glossa  ordinance  of  Walafrid  Strabo  (f  849)  acquired 
such  extraordinary  popularity  that  it  was  called  Lingua 
Scripturae,  and  even  Peter  Lombard  quotes  it  under  the  title 
of  “  the  Authority.”2  A  single  specimen  may  serve  to  show 

of  Theophylact  (eleventh,  century),  and  Euthymius  Zigaebenus  (twelfth  cen¬ 
tury),  in  the  Greek  Church  have  a  higher  value.  See  Fabricius,  Bibl.  Grace. 
vii.  727  ;  Buddeus,  hag.  p.  1422  ;  Walch,  Bibl.  Med.  iv.  192  fg.  ;  Elster, 
Be  Med.  Aevi  Theolog.  Exeget.  p.  17  ;  Bacon,  Advancement  of  Learning,  ii. 
“This  course  of  sums  and  commentaries  is  that  which  doth  infallibly  make 
the  body  of  sciences  more  immense  in  quantity  and  more  base  in  substance. 
Erasm.  in  2  Cor.  xi.  23  ;  1  .Tim.  ii.  15;  “  Tumultuario  Studio,  hinc  atque 
hinc  consarcinatis  glossematis.”  But  no  judgment  can  be  severer  than  that  ot 
the  acute  John  of  Salisbury.  “Compliant  omniuna  opiniones,  et  ilia  quae 
etiam  a  vilissimis  dicta  vel  scripta  sunt  ab  inopia  j udicii,  scribunt  et  referunt ; 
proponunt  enim  omnia  quia  nesciunt  praeferre  meliora,"  &c.  Metalog.  ii.  7. 
For  a  more  favourable  view  see  Newman’s  Pref.  to  the  Catena  Aurea,  and 
' €>Lvt  Saints,  clicip#  v. 

1  See  Glossen  and  Exeget.  Sammlungen  in  Herzog’s  EncyJclop.  The  success 
of  the  Glossa  was  due,  in  part  to  its  (baseless)  ingenuity.  Thus  on  Gen.  ix. 
13,  since  the  rainbow  is  blue  and  red,  it  is  made  to  be  a  prophecy  of  the 
Deluge  and  the  final  conflagration!  See  too  Hieron.  Magius,  Be  mundi 
exustione  (1562),  p.  9.  Milton,  even  in  his  day,  complains  of  the  use  made 
by  the  clergy  of  “  interlinearies  .  .  .  and  other  loitering  gear.”  There  were 
nine  editions  of  the  Glossa  between  1472  and  1634. 

2  Contemporary  with  Walafrid  was  his  teacher,  Rabanus  Maurus  (1  856), 
the  author  of  the  Liber  Allegoriarum.  He  speaks  of  himselt  as  “  Col- 
lectarius  quidam,”  and  in  his  Prologue  to  St.  Matthew  tells  us  that  his  com¬ 
mentary  is  composed  of  extracts  from  eleven  Latin  and  three  Greek  Fathers. 
Great  part  even  of  his  introduction  is  verbally  identical  with  Bede’s.  Fabri¬ 
cius  says  that  there  were  hundreds  of  Catenae  in  the  Royal  Library  at  Paris. 
The  manufacture  was  easy.  See  too  Hist.  Lit.  de  France,  v.  62.  llie  Douav 
edition  of  the  Glossa  Ordinaria  says  that  all  succeeding  writers  used  to  consult 
it  “  tamquam  offixinam  ecclesiasticorum  sensuumB 


252 


Exegetic  Nullity . 


its  character.  It  mfflht  have  been  thought  that  the  first 

o  o 

verse  of  the  Prophet  Joel,  “  The  word  of  the  Lord  that  came  to 
Joel  the  son  of  Pethuelf  needed  little  elucidation.  In  the 
Glossa  “  the  word  ”  is  as  a  matter  of  course  absurdly  and 
irreverently  referred  to  Christ,  and  “  quod  factum  est”  is 
explained  to  mean  that  Christ  was  “  made  ”  not  as  regards 
Himself  hut  as  regards  him  to  whom  He  was  made.  “Factum 
estf  says  Remigius,  “  is  put  for  *  spoke  ’  ”  !  “  This  word,”  says 
Rupert  of  Deutz,  “  is  Christ  the  Son  of  God,  whom  J oel  son 
of  Phaluck  signifies  both  by  his  own  and  by  his  father’s 
name.”1  “  The  word,”  says  Hugo  of  St.  Victor,  “  involves  the 
sound,  the  form,  the  meaning.  The  sound  is  here  addressed 
to  the  enemy ;  the  form  of  the  word  to  the  afflicted  people ; 
the  meaning  of  the  word  to  the  mind  of  the  Prophet,  and  the 
choir  of  the  elect.”  It  would  be  hardly  possible  more  effectu¬ 
ally  to  darken  counsel  by  the  multitude  of  words  without 
knowledge ;  yet  with  such  comments  the  mediaeval  writings 
are  filled  in  every  page.  The  Eruditio  Eidascaliae  by  Hugo 
of  St.  Victor  shows  that  even  the  theory  of  exegesis  was 
hopelessly  perverted.2  Its  practice  consists  for  the  most  part 
of  moral  platitudes ;  dogmatic  iterations  extorted  from 
passages  with  which  they  have  not  the  remotest  connexion ; 
mystic  plays  on  numbers ;  erroneous  etymologies ;  a  use  of 
parallel  phrases  and  passages  which  is  often  absurd  in  its 
triviality,  and  which  a  glance  at  the  original  languages  or  the 
context  would  have  rendered  impossible ;  and  amidst  these 

1  Rupert  illustrates  the  possibility  of  subtle  theological  acumen  co-existing 
with  very  weak  exegesis.  John  Wessel  (f  1489)  when  tired  of  the  iteration  of 
the  Summvttae  used  to  cross  the  Rhine  and  read  the  MSS.  of  Rupert  in  the 
Abbey  of  Deutz. 

2  Erudit.  Didasc.  vi.  In  some  respects  there  was  more  freedom  of  thought 
in  the  ninth  century  than  in  the  twelfth.  Claudius  of  Turin  (t  839)  and 
Archbishop  Agobard  of  Lyons  (t  840)  were  both  of  them  independent  thinkers. 
The  latter  argues  against  verbal  dictation  [ipsa  corporalia  verba )  of  Scripture  as 
absurd,  and  rightly  insists  that  its  form  is  human,  even  when  the  sense  is 
divine  [Lib.  c.  Object.  Fredegisii,  xii.  277).  The  passage  is  quoted  by  Mr. 
Poole  [Med.  Thought,  p.  46),  who  says  that  Gibbon’s  remark  “that  the 
disciples  of  the  Messiah  were  indulged  in  a  freer  latitude,  both  of  faith  and 
practice,  than  has  ever  been  allowed  in  succeeding  ages,”  applies  no  less  to  the 
ninth  century.  Agobard  distinguished  himself  by  protesting  against  the  duel 
and  ordeal,  and  Reuter  [Rcl.  Auferkldrung  im  Mittelalter,  i.  24)  calls  him 
“the  clearest  head  of  the  ninth  century.”  On  this  period  see  R.  Simon, 
Hist,  des  Comment,  pp.  422-468  ;  Buddeus,  Isagoge ,  lib.  ii.  cap.  8. 


Erigena. 


253 


masses  of  exegetic  nullity  a  total  failure  to  grasp  the  simple 
and  often  obvious  meaning  either  of  books,  passages,  texts,  or 
even  words.  Most  of  these  Compilers  and  Glossators  were 
preachers ;  some  of  them  were  saints  of  God ;  many  of  them 
were  the  most  learned  men  of  their  day ;  but  in  spite  of  all 
this,  their  exegesis  is  null  and  naught.1 

Between  this  earlier  epoch  and  the  zenith  of  Papal  supre¬ 
macy  stands  the  great  name  of  Johannes  Scotus  Erigena. 
Scholasticism  practically  sprang  out  of  the  brief  collision 
between  Church  authority  and  independent  thought.  It  was 
in  part  the  outcome  of  controversies  like  that  between  Batram 
and  Pascliasius  on  the  Eucharist  (a.d.  844)  ;  between  Lanfranc 
and  Berengarius  on  the  Eucharist  (1047) ;  between  Anselm 
and  Roscelin  on  Universals  (1092) ;  between  Bernard  and 
Abelard  on  rationalism.2  Erigena,  who  towers  above  his  age, 
was  employed  to  answer  Gotteschalc  who  was  a  Predestinarian, 
but  he  was  himself  condemned  by  two  Councils  for  “  very 
many  heresies  inferred  by  very  many  syllogisms,”  and  his 
books  were  burnt  by  Pope  Honorius  III.3  Alone  among  his 
predecessors,  contemporaries,  and  successors,  he  shows  in¬ 
dependence  and  originality.  “  Let  no  authority  terrify  you/’ 
he  says,  “  from  conclusions  which  the  reasonable  persuasion 

1  Even  Cardinal  Newman  says,  “  About  the  sixth  or  seventh  century 
this  originality  disappears  ;  the  oral  or  traditionary  teaching  which  allowed 
scope  to  the  individual  teacher  became  hardened  into  a  written  tradition ,  and 
henceforth  there  is  a  uniform  invariable  character  as  well  as  substance  of 
Scripture  interpretation.  ”  Pref.  to  Catena  Aurea,  p.  ii.  The  lexicographers 
Hesychius,  Suidas,  Phavorinus,  Zonaras,  &c.,  are  not  exegetes  but  furnish 
good  materials. 

2  Scholasticism  may  be  divided  into  three  epochs.  1.  From  Anselm  (t  1109) 

to  Peter  Lombard  (t  1164).  2.  From  Peter  Lombard  to  the  death  of  Albertus 

Magnus  (t  1280).  3.  From  the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century  to  Gabriel 
Biel  (t  1495).  Haureau  divides  it,  1.  From  Alcuin  to  the  end  of  the  twelfth 
century.  2.  From  Alexander  of  Hales  (t  1245)  to  John  Gerson  (t  1429). 
Ueberweg’s  epochs  are  nearly  the  same,  and  so  are  those  adopted  by  Tribbe- 
chovius  and  by  Diestel.  Philosophically,  Mr.  Lewes  distinguishes  three 
epochs.  1.  The  debate  on  Universals.  2.  The  influence  of  Aristotle.  3. 
The  proclamation  of  the  independence  of  reason  ( Biogr .  Hist,  of  Philos,  p. 
290).  Cousin  distinguishes  between  the  periods  of  (1)  absolute  subordination 
and  (2)  commencing  emancipation  of  philosophy  ( Cours  de  l’ hist,  de  la  philos. 
Le^on  ix.). 

s  Feb.  23,  1225.  The  writings  of  Erigena  fell  into  the  more  suspicion 
from  the  use  made  of  them  by  Berengarius  of  Tours  in  the  Eucharistic  con¬ 
troversy  (1050),  and  by  Amalric  of  Bene.  John  Scotus  was  the  first  who 
adopted  a  systematically  syllogistic  form  of  argument. 


254 


Erigena. 


of  right  contemplation  teaches.  "Reason  and  authority  come 
alike  from  the  one  source  of  divine  wisdom,  and  cannot 
contradict  each  other.  Reason  is  not  to  be  overruled  by 
authority  but  the  reverse,  and  therefore  the  opinions  of  the 
Fathers  must  only  be  introduced  in  case  of  necessity,1  for  the 
Fathers  often  contradict  each  other/'2  That  voice  was  of  a 
higher  mood,  but  no  one  listened  to  it.  Erigena  unhappily 
was  not  a  commentator.  He  held  indeed  that  “  the  sense  of 
divine  utterance  is  manifold,  and  like  a  peacock’s  feather 
glows  with  many  colours,”3  but  he  also  held  that  all  creatures 
are  manifestations  of  the  divine.  The  chief  influence  he 
exercised  was  due  to  his  translation  and  adoption  of  the 
views  of  the  Syrian  Neoplatonist  whose  works  were  attributed 
to  Dionysius  the  Areopagite.4  Those  spurious  writings,  which 
probably  originated  at  Edessa  or  under  the  influence  of 
the  Edessene  School,  about  the  beginning  of  the  sixth 
century,  wrought  like  a  spell  upon  the  mediaeval  Church 


1  Be  Biv.  Nat.  i.  66,  68,  71,  iv.  9 ;  Diestel,  p.  159.  He  asserts  the  identity 
of  Philosophy  and  Religion,  not  the  vassalage  of  the  former  to  the  latter. 
IJeherweg,  i.  357.  So  too  Berengar.  adv.  Lanfranc .,  Lib.  ‘posterior ,  p.  105. 

2  Be  Biv.  Nat.  iv.  16. 

3  Be  Biv.  Nat.  iv.  5.  This  truly  great  work  was  condemned  by  the  Synod 
of  Valence  (855)  as  a  commentum  diaboli  ;  and  by  Pope  Honorius  III.  (1225) 
as  “teeming  with  the  venom  of  heretical  depravity  and  placed  on  the 
Index  by  Gregory  XIII.  See  Schaff,  Mediaeval  Christianity,  ii.  543. 

4  The  writings  of  Pseudo-Dionysius  are  first  heard  of  about  532,  soon  after 
the  closing  of  the  Neoplatonic  schools  of  Athens  by  Justinian,  and  their  authen¬ 
ticity  was  early  disputed  (Phot.  Cod.  2).  Cave  ( Script .  Ecc.  i.  177)  attributes 
them  to  Apollinaris  the  elder,  and  others  to  Synesius.  Neither  suggestion  is 
probable.  See  Gieseler,  ii.  113  ;  Meier,  Be  Bionysii  et  Mysticorum  Boctrina, 
1845  ;  Montet,  Bes  Limes  du  Pseudo- B iony sius  ;  Dean  Colet  on  the  Celestial 
Hierarchies  of  Bionysius  (ed.  Lupton)  ;  Westcott  on  Bionys.  the  Areop., 
Contemp.  Lev.  May,  1867.  “The  effect  of  this  work  on  the  whole  ec¬ 
clesiastical  system  and  on  the  popular  faith  it  is  almost  impossible  justly  to 
estimate.”  Milman,  Lat.  Christ,  iv.  334.  “  Proclus  and  Dionysius  ploughed 
with  one  and  the  same  Neoplatonic  heifer”  (Fabric.  Marini  Procli  Vita,  p. 
xii.).  The  books  of  Dionysius  were  translated  by  J.  Scotus  Erigena,  and  in 
the  twelfth  century  by  Saracenus  ;  but  even  in  757  his  writings  had  been 
given  by  Paul  I.  to  Pippin.  They  were  favourites  with  the  mystics,  as  also 
with  Ficino  and  Pico  of  Mirandola.  Some  of  Abelard’s  many  troubles  were 
caused  by  certain  historic  doubts  as  to  Dionysius  and  St.  Denys.  Pope  says 
with  somewhat  ignorant  severity, 

“  Go  soar  with  Plato  to  th’  empyreal  sphere 
To  the  first  good,  first  perfect,  and  first  fair  ; 

Or  tread  the  mazy  round  his  followers  trod, 

And  quitting  sense  call  imitating  God.” 

Essay  on  Man,  ii.  23-26. 


St.  Bernard. 


255 


and  especially  upon  the  mystics  of  the  twelfth  and  the 
Platonists  of  the  fifteenth  century.  The  cjovyr]  /jlovov  7rpo? 
/jlovov  of  Plotinus1  expresses  the  inmost  idea  of  Mysticism, 
and  its  influence  is  traceable  not  only  in  the  mystics  of  the 
Middle  Ages  but  in  Dean  Colet,2  in  the  Quietists,  in  the 
Molinists,  and  even  in  the  memorable  remark  of  Cardinal 
Newman  about  God  and  the  soul  as  being  the  two  supremely 
and  luminously  self-evident  existences. 

It  was  not  till  the  twelfth  century  that  the  slightest  breath 
of  fresh  life  blew  over  the  faded  fields.  The  era  of  passivity 
ends  with  Erigena.  Thenceforth  dogma  assumes  the  aid  of 
dialectics,  and  is  developed  into  a  system.  Just  as  Alexan¬ 
drian  Christianity  was  the  result  of  a  conflict  with  heretical 
gnosis,  so  scholasticism  was  elicited  by  the  efforts  of  free 
inquiry.  The  era  begins  with  the  attempt  of  Anselm  (1033- 
1109)  to  raise  the  truths  of  faith  to  scientific  certainty,  and 
so  to  fuse  faith  and  reason  as  to  save  the  one  from  being 
blind,  and- the  other  from  being  autocratic.3  The  close  of 
this  century  is  marked  by  the  great  names  of  Bernard  (1091- 
1153),  of  Abelard  (1079-1142),  of  Rupert  of  Deutz  (t  1135), 4 
of  Hugo  (f  1141),  and  of  Richard  de  Sto  Yictore  (t  1173). 

St.  Bernard,  the  Doctor  Mdlifluus ,  and  “Last  of  the 
Fathers,”  is  the  able  and  eloquent  representative  of  the  eccle¬ 
siastical  rule,  but  also  the  father  of  the  mediaeval  mystics.5 
Mysticism  is  the  natural  resource  of  souls  that  cannot  find  suffi¬ 
cient  to  satisfy  their  religious  needs  in  the  tyranny  of  artificial 
systems.  The  calm  question  of  the  author  of  the  Imitatio, 

1  Plotin.  Ennead.  vi.  9.  Creuzer  says  of  the  Ps.  Dionysius,  “His  walls  are 
inlaid  with  Plotinian  mosaic.”  Dante  expresses  the  high  estimate  of  him  in 
the  Mediaeval  Church  {Par.  x.  112  ;  xxviii.  121). 

2  “  Nisi  poterit  homo  dicere  secum  Ego  solus  et  Deus  in  mundo  sum  non 
habebit  requiem  ”  (Colet). 

3  “  Credo  ut  intelligam  ”  (Anselm,  Prol.). 

4  The  remarks  of  Rupert  {Prol.  in  Joann.)  in  favour  of  the  view  that  com¬ 
mentators  were  still  possible  though  Augustine  had  written,  were  thought 
unusually  bold.  On  the  transcendent  authority  of  Augustine,  which  even 
Berengarius  said  it  was  “  ne  fas  quidem  contradicere,  ”  see  Werner,  Schol.  d. 
MiUelalt.  i.  1-3. 

6  See  Stockl,  Geseh.  d.  Philos,  d.  Mittelalters,  i.  293.  It  is  remarkable  that 
while  Peter  Lombard  quotes  Hugo  of  St.  Victor,  he  never  notices  Bernard. 
Thomasius  thinks  that  this  was  out  of  kindness  to  the  memory  of  his  teacher 
Abelard. 


256 


The  Song  of  Solomon. 

“  Quid  nobis  cum  gcncribus  ct  speciebus  ?  ”  expressed  the  re¬ 
jection  by  the  truest  mystics  of  the  discussions  which  oc¬ 
cupied  so  many  centuries.  Mysticism  was  not  an  enemy  to 
scholasticism,  hut  had  a  different  aim.  Scholasticism  dealt 
with  aetiology,  and  aimed  at  the  discovery  of  truth ;  mysticism 
dealt  with  teleology,  and  aimed  at  the  realisation  of  holiness.1 
All  mysticism  is  included  in  the  remark  of  St.  Bernard, 
“  Causa  diligendi  Dei  Deus  est,  modus  est  sine  modo  diligere  ” 
(De  dilig.  Deo ,  opp.  i.  974).  It  was  fostered  in  the  intellect 
by  the  fancies  of  the  Pseudo-Areopagite,  and  in  the  heart 
by  the  unnatural  asceticism  of  the  monastic  system.  Deprived 
of  the  refining  influence  of  family  life,  shut  up  in  an  endless 
round  of  services  and  self-denials  which  alike  tended  to 
become  mechanical,  the  monks  were  still  unable  to  defy  the 
emotions  and  impulses  of  nature,  and  while  they  desired  to 
live  in  closest  communion  with  the  divine,  constructed  for 
themselves  in  the  next  world  an  idealised  form  of  the  joys 
which  they  gave  up  in  this.  There  was  one  book  of  the 
Bible  which  left  scope  to  their  imagination  to  revel  in 
thoughts  which  seemed  to  he  innocent  because  they  were 
supposed  to  be  Scriptural,  and  which  gratified  those  yearnings 
of  the  human  heart  which  are  too  strong  and  too  sacred  to 
he  permanently  crushed.  It  was  the  Song  of  Solomon. 
Many  of  the  Jewish  Rabbis  had  felt  doubts  about  the  book, 
until  Aqiha  with  his  usual  dictatorial  confidence  had  declared 
that  it  was  the  very  Holy  of  Holies  of  Scripture.2  Whether 
mystically  interpreted  of  the  soul  or  not,  it  was  felt  to  be 
a  warm  and  glowing  song  of  love,  and  Jewish  youths  were 
not  permitted  to  read  it.3  Such  feelings  were  not  transitory. 
Abelard  feared  the  effects  which  it  would  produce  on  the  minds 

1  Hergenrother,  K.  G.  i.  953.  St.  Bernard  speaks  ( Sermons ,  ed.  Martene, 
p.  21)  “  of  Aristotelicae  subtilitatis facunda  quidem  sed  ivfecunda  loquacitas .” 

2  “  On  the  day  when  K.  Eliezer  ben  Azariah  was  made  President  it  was 
decided  that  the  books  of  Canticles  and  Ecclesiastes  defile  the  hands  ( i.c . 
are  canonical).  It.  Aqiba  said  ...  No  day  in  the  history  of  the  world  is  so 
valued  as  the  day  when  the  Book  of  Canticles  was  given  to  Israel  ;  for  all  the 
Scriptures  are  holy,  but  the  Book  of  Canticles  is  the  Holy  of  Holies  ” 
(Yaddaim,  c.  iii.). 

3  Sanhedrin,  f.  101,  i.  . .  .  “Whoever  recites  averse  of  the  Song  of  Solomon 
as  a  secular  song  .  .  .  causes  evil  to  come  upon  the  world.” 


Monasticism. 


257 


of  the  virgins  of  the  Paraclete.1  When  we  read  Jerome’s  letter 
to  Enstochium  on  Virginity  we  can  see  that  there  might  be 
both  moral  danger  and  gross  bad  taste  in  the  manner  in 
which  the  images  of  Canticles  were  applied.2  Something  of 
the  same  kind  may  be  seen  at  the  close  of  Hugo's  treatise, 
De,  Nujotiis.  Jerome  had  mentioned  the  Canticles  as  the 
goal  for  Panlla  s  theological  studies.3  Aquinas  expounded  it 
almost  with  his  dying  breath.  The  monkish  commentaries 
upon  it  were  unwliolesomely  numberless.  In  the  eighty- 
six  Plomilies  of  St.  Bernard  there  are  thoughts  and  passages 
lull  of  beauty,  but  the  mystic  interpretation  of  the  book, 
even  if  it  be  justifiable,  degenerated  in  meaner  hands  into  a 
style  of  language  of  which  it  would  be  charitable  to  say 
nothing  worse  than  that  it  is  too  poetically  sensuous  for  any 
commentary  on  Holy  Writ. 

The  monastery  of  St.  Victor  was  the  chief  home  of 
mediaeval  mysticism.4 S  Over  its  gate  was  the  inscription — 

“  Claustrum  nolenti  mors  est,  sed  vita  volenti  ; 

Per  claustri  sedem  coeli  mercaberis  Pdend 

In  that  distich  lay  the  whole  theory  of  monasticism.  Its 
aim  was  to  fly  from  the  world,  not  to  save  it.  It  strove  to 
obtain  personal  salvation  as  the  payment  of  present  asceticism. 
Hugo  was  driven  into  mysticism  by  disgusted  conviction  of 
the  danger  and  uselessness  of  the  dialectics  which  had  been 
introduced  into  the  service  of  religion.  “The  incorrupted 
truth  of  things,”  he  says,  “cannot  be  discovered  by  ratio- 

1  Ep.  ad  Virg.  Paracl.  “  Ne  sub  carnalibus  verbis  nuptiarum  spiritualium, 
epithalamium  non  intelligens  vulneretur”  (Opp.  ed.  Cousin,  i.  227). 

2  Here  are  a  few  of  St.  Bernard’s  explanations :  Meliora  sunt  libera  tua 
vino.  Though  addressed  to  the  Bride  he  refers  them  to  Christ,  and  says  that 
they  mean  His  patience  and  His  clemency  (which  he  proves  at  great  length  by 

parallel  passages”).  Propterea  adolescentulae  te  dilexerunt  nimis.  Tlfe 
adolcscentulae  are  the  Angels,  and  this  gives  Bernard  an  opportunity  to 
expatiate  at  length  on  the  nine  orders  of  Angels,  &c. 

*  Ep.  ad  Lactam. 

4  Hugo,  Erudit.  Didnscal.  iii.  13.  John  of  Salisbury  had  said,  “  Claustrales 
rectissime  et  tutissime  philosopliantur  ”  (Polycrat.  viii.  13,  21).  Bacon  says, 

“  Quemadmodum  corpora  eorum  in  cellis  coenobiorum,  sic  animus  in  uno 
Aristotele  conclusus  fuit”  (De  Augm.  Scient.  i.  16);  see  Haureau,  i.  507. 
Bven  Bede  complains  of  the  “  innumera  monasticae  scrvitutis  retinacula  ” 

S 


258 


The  Mystics. 

cination.”  1  It  was,  however,  of  no  importance  that  ratiocina¬ 
tion  should  fail  to  discover  truth,  for  according  to  Hugo 
truth  had  already  attained  its  full  and  final  objective  ex¬ 
istence  in  the  system  of  the  Church.  Disce  prius  quid 
tenendum  sit  was  his  plain  advice  ;  first  learn  what  you  aie 
to  believe,  and  then  go  to  Scripture  to  find  it  there  1  Dog¬ 
matics  were  made  the  key  to  interpretation.  He  places  the 
end  of  life  in  contemplation  which  he  says  follows  after 
reading,  meditation,  prayer,  and  good  works,  and  is  a  lore- 
taste  of  heaven.3  In  his  treatise  on  Contemplation,  he  tells 
his  novices  to  read  the  Scriptures  for  instruction  in  morals, 
not  for  training  in  subtlety.4  It  was,  however,  the  object  of 
the  Victorines  not  so  much  to  reject  the  scholastic  methods 
as  to  unite  them  with  mysticism.  Richard  of  St.  Victor 
(t  1178),  in  his  Benjamin  Major,  defines  and  describes  con¬ 
templation  in  a  manner  altogether  scholastic.5  In  the 
fourteenth  century  mysticism  became  more  simple.  Tauler 
anticipates  the  Protestant  demand  for  Scripture  and  feciip- 
ture  only,  and  if  he  relies  on  the  mystic  interpretation  it  is 
because  to  him  inspiration  was  the  living  inner  word  which 
corresponds  with  Scripture,  and  Scripture  was  only  regarded 
as  a  witness  to  the  revelation  of  God  in  Christ.6 

In  one  sense  mysticism  was  a  protest  against  the  hold  and 
speculative  inquiries  of  Abelard,  who  is  justly  regarded  as 

1  Erudit.  Diclascal.  i.  12.  See  Haureau,  Hugues  de  St.  Victor.  He  said, 

“  Tantum  de  veritate  quisque  potest  videre,  quantum  ipse  est.  t 

2  Erudit.  Didasc.  vi.  4.  An  old  Pope  is  reported  to  have  said,  _  t  he 
Scripture  is  a  book  which,  if  a  man  will  keep  close  to,  he  will  quite  rum  the 

Catholic  faith.”  . 

3  Erud.  Didasc.  i.  9.  R.  de  Sto  Yictore  said,  “  In  tantum  Deus  cognoscitur 

in  quantum  amatur.”  ,  ,  ^ 

4  De  Contemplation  et  ejus  Speciebus  (published  m  Haureau  s  M.  ae  m. 
Victor)  ;  “ubi  caritas  ibi  claritas  ”  ( De  Sacr.  ii.  13,  §  11).  His  own  method 
is  allegoric,  monastic,  and  popular.  On  1  K.  iv.  10  he  says  that  the  ten  tat 
oxen  represent  the  Decalogue,  the  twenty  pasture  oxen  the  preaching  m  le 
New  Testament,  the  100  rams  perfectam  ecclesiasticam  praelationem. 

5  See  Yaughan,  St.  Thomas  Aquin.  i.  252.  Hergenrother  rightly  says  that 

in  the  hands  of  these  writers  Scholasticism  and  Mysticism  were  nur 
verschiedene  Auffassungs-  und  Darstellungsweisen  derDogmen  (A.  C.  p.  •  • 

6  Tauler  complains  that  “  Man  nimmt  fremde  Glossen  aus  der  H.  ^cnnit 
dass  es  zu  erbarmen  ist.”  See  Bohringer,  xvii.  German  mystics  lauier 
(t  1361),  Suso  (t  1365),  Rusbroek  (t  1381),  and  the  author  of  a  German 
Theology  ”  (see  Pfeiffer’s  Deutsche  Mystiker,  and  Ullmann,  lief  or  motor  en  xor 
der  Reformation). 


Abelard. 


259 


the  chief  founder  of  scholasticism  proper.  For  mysticism 
was  introduced  into  the  monastery  of  St.  Victor  by  William 
of  Champeaux  when  he  had  been  dialectically  defeated  by 
the  audacious  arrogance  of  his  dangerous  pupil.1  It  rendered 
one  great  service  by  the  persistence  with  which  the  mystics 
pointed  out  that  the  object  of  studying  Scripture  was  not 
speculative  but  practical  and  moral.2  Their  object  was  to 
make  men  better;  to  give  them,  not  mirabilw ,  but salutiferaz 
— the  grace  of  eternal  peace,  or  admiration,  or  the  highest 
love  of  God.4 

It  may  seem  strange  that  a  man  who  is  regarded  as  the 
founder  of  scholasticism  should  have  been  a  rationalist  in  his 
tendencies.5  Like  Gregory  of  Nyssa  Abelard  was  orthodox, 
but  he  wrote  with  a  freedom  which  tended  to  separate  the 
dogmas  of  Theology  and  Philosophy,  and  Peter  Lombard,  like 
Augustine,  helped  to  restore  Theology  to  its  old  supremacy. 
Scholasticism,  as  represented  by  St.  Thomas  of  Aquino,  com¬ 
bined  the  authority  of  Scripture,  tradition,  and  the  Church, 
— an  authority  not  demonstrated  but  accepted  as  an  incon¬ 
trovertible  axiom.6  Abelard,  by  his  Sic  et  Non ,  and  his 
own  standpoint  of  indifference,  helped  to  break  down  the 
authority  of  tradition,7  and  even  used  language,  which 

1  See  Ueberweg,  Hist,  of  Philosophy,  i.  376,  E.  T. 

2  Hugo  of  St.  Victor,  Erud.  Didasc.  v.  10.  Comp.  Johann.  Sarisb.  Polycrat. 
vii.  10.  Augustine  and  Abelard  had  said  the. same. 

3  Richard  of  St.  Victor. 

4  Bonaventura,  Breviloq.,  ad  init.  In  Richard  of  St.  Victor’s  system  there 
are  three  powers  of  the  soul — Imagination,  Reason,  Intelligence — to  which 
correspond  three  methods  of  knowledge— Thought,  Meditation,  Contempla¬ 
tion.  The  object  of  Contemplation  is  God,  the  means  to  it  are  virtue  and 
self-knowledge.  It  has  six  steps  to  it  (which  are  very  scholastically  described), 
and  three  grades — Dilatatio,  Sublevatio,  Alienatio  (ecstasy).  Rachel  (the 
reason)  dies  that  Benjamin  (ecstasy)  may  be  born.  It  is  here  that  Holy 
Scripture  comes  in  (like  Moses  and  Elias  at  the  Transfiguration)  to  prevent 
self-deception  or  Satanic  delusion. 

5  “  Ce  qui  est  certain  c’est  que  la  scholastique  .  .  .  ne  cite  point  de  plus 
grand  nom,  et  consent  d  datcr  de  lui  ”  (Remusat,  Abelard ,  i.  272). 

The  universally  accepted  phrase  “  Philosophia  ancilla  Thcologiae”  seems 
to  come  from  Didymus  (who  makes  Sara  a  symbol  of  theology,  Hagar  of 
Dialectics)  through  John  Damascene  ( Dial .  i.  1) — see  Remusat,  AHlard, 
ii.  144. 

7  He  does  not  scruple  to  head  his  sections  “  Quod  non  sit  Deus  singularis  et 
contra  “Quod  sit  Deus  tripartitus  et  contra  ;  ”  “  Quod  sit  finis  sine  prin- 
cipio  et  contra;”  “Quod  omnia  sciat  Deus  et  non,”  &c.  Yet  Abelard  was 
rather  an  inquirer  than  a  sceptic,  and  his  Sic  et  Non  was  only  meant  (like 


260 


Abelard. 


expressed  somewhat  less  than  the  current  adoration  of 
Scripture.1  For,  after  showing  the  errors  and  inconsistencies 
of  the  Fathers  (to  whom  he  yet  attributes  a  special  inspiration) 
he  adds,  “  What  wonder,  when  it  is  acknowledged  that  even 
Prophets  and  Apostles  were  not  wholly  free  from  enoi,  if 
in  such  a  multitude  of  writings  of  the  Holy  Fathers,  some 
things  seem  to  be  erroneously  propounded  and  written  ?  The 
Prophets  were  not,  he  says,  always  filled  with  the  grace  of 
God.  He  proceeds,  however,  to  limit  the  errors  of  Prophets 
to  their  lives ;  to  erroneous  citations  due  to  the  Scribes ;  and 
to  the  fact  that  they  necessarily  spoke  in  popular  language.3 
Hence,  if  anything  in  Scripture  seems  to  be  absurd  we  are 
not  to  set  it  down  to  the  writer  but  to  the  fault  of  the  manu¬ 
script  or  the  mistake  of  the  translation.4  He  rightly  and 
wisely  distinguished  between  important  and  unimportant 
elements  in  Scripture,  and,  like  Luther,  drew  a  distinction 

the  Stoic  paradoxes  and  Kant’s  Antinomies)  to  stimulate  inquiry  (see 
Maurice,  Mediaeval  Philosophy,  p.  39).  Comp.  Tribbechovius,  p.  325. 

1  Abelard  always  writes  like  a  man  of  genius,  but  his  answers  to  the  strange 
scholastic  questions  sent  him  by  Heloise,  and  his  own  commentaries,  Provej, 
as  Tholuck  says,  that  he  was  not  a  good  historic  interpreter..  He  is  too  full 
of  curiosities,  placita  majorum,  ecclesiae  praecepta,  quaestiones  scholasticac, 
&c.  (Tholuck,  Be  Thom.  Aquin.  et  Abaelardo )..  He  often  makes  remarks  which 
would  he  stigmatised  as  “rationalistic.”  For  instance,  he  preferred  the  version 
of  the  Lord’s  Prayer  in  St.  Matthew  to  that  in  St.  Luke,  because,  the  latter 
could  only  have  heard  it  secondhand  from  St.  Paul.  Hence  William  of  St. 
Thierry  complained  that  “  he  treated  Scripture  as  he  treated  Logic ..  .  .  he  is 
the  censor  not  the  disciple  of  the  faith,  the  corrector  not  the  imitator  ox 
our  masters  ”  (ap.  Bern.  Opp.  Ep.  326).  For  specimens  of  .“  discrepancies 
in  the  Gospels  and  Fathers  see  the  Sic  et  Non,  p.  7  (ed.  Cousin).  . 

2  “  Constat  et  prophetas  ipsos  quandoque  prophetiae  gratia  caruisse  [Sic  et 

Non,  Prol.). 

3  Sic  et  Non,  Prol.  On  the  Sic  et  Non  see  S.  Bernard,  Ep.  326  ;  lract.  de 
Erroribus  Abaelardi,  i.  ;  Opp.  i.  532,  1055  (Migne),  Vaughan,  Life,  of  St. 
Thomas  Aquinas,  i.  168,  sq.  ;  Maurice,  Med.  Philos,  pp.  138-141.  In 
Abelard’s  hook  On  the  Trinity  there  is  said  to  have  been,  the  remark,  .  Nee 
quia  Ecus  id  dixerat  creditur,  sed  quia  hoc  sic  esse  convincitur,  recipitur. 
This  bold  assertion  of  the  claims  of  reason  was  hateful  to  the  traditionalists 

(Poole,  p.  153).  #  #  . 

4  This  view  created  no  difficulty,  because  something  like  it  was  found,  m 
Augustine  and  Jerome.  The  Correctoria Biblica  of  Lanfranc,  Stephen  Hauling, 
R.  Grostete  (t  1253),  Cardinal  Hugo  of  St.  Cher  (t  1260)  show  that  the  need 
of  a  better  text  was  felt.  Roger  Bacon  speaks  of  the  impossibility  ot  a  trans¬ 
lation  conveying  the  exact  sense  of  the  original,  and  quotes  Grostete  as  desiring 
a  new  translation  [Opus  Magus,  iii.  1).  Hugo  of  St.  Cher  deserves  special 
mention  as  “the  Father  of  Concordances”  and  the  first  Postillator  of  the 
whole  Bible.  For  specimens  of  his  extravagance  see  the  notes  of  Erasmus 
on  Matt.  v.  16,  xix.  22,  Johnv.  2,  1  Pet.  ii.  24,  &c. 


Peter  Lombard. 


261 


between  C£  Scripture  ”  and  the  “  word  of  God.”  To  Abelard, 
however,  is  mainly  due  the  scholastic  method  of  dialectics, 
and  the  restless  spirit  of  unchecked  speculation.  As  to  the 
first  he  himself  said  “  Odiosum  me  mundo  reddidit  logical  1 
and  took  as  his  motto  “  By  doubting  we  arrive  at  truth.” 
As  to  the  second  we  read  the  indignant  complaint  of  Bernard, 
“  He  thrusts  his  face  into  heaven  and  peers  into  the  secrets 
of  God,  and  while  he  is  ready  to  render  a  reason  about  all 
things,  he  assumes  even  those  which  are  above  reason  and 
against  reason  and  against  faith.  For  what  is  more  against 
reason  than  by  reason  to  endeavour  to  transcend  reason  ?  ”  2 
Hence  Abelard  produced  the  two-fold  reaction  of  the 
dogmatists  and  the  mystics,  who  hated  alike  what  they  re¬ 
garded  as  “  profane  verbal  novelties,”  and  to  whom  the  very 
words  Sic  et  Non  sounded  monstrous.3  The  dogmatists 
demanded  oracles  of  certainty ;  the  mystics  required  intuitions 
of  rapturous  communion. 

Peter  Lombard  (f  1164),  the  famous  “Master  of  the 
Sentences ,”  though  he  had  been  a  pupil  of  Abelard,  recoiled 
altogether  from  his  position.  His  Sentences  are  a  protest 
against  the  Sic  et  Non,  as  the  Sic  et  Non  had  been 
perhaps  itself  a  protest  against  the  “  crede  ut  intelligas  ” 
of  Anselm.4  They  became  with  Aristotle  and  the  Bible 
the  “  bases  of  the  active  intellect  ”  of  the  thirteenth  cen¬ 
tury.  Peter  was  accused  of  heresy  at  first  by  Walter  of 

1  Apol.  ad  Hclois.,  Opp.  p.  308.  Almost  the  only  other  voices  which  venture 
(more  timidly)  to  dissent  from  the  Fathers  were  those  of  Richard  of  St.  Victor 
(Opp.  ii.  1)  and  Rupert  of  Deutz.  There  was  an  old  rule — 

“  Si  Augustinus  adest  sufficit  ipse  tibi,” 

and  Rupert  shows  courage  in  the  manly  and  beautiful  passage  of  the  preface 
to  his  commentary  on  St.  John,  in  which  he  claims  that  though  the  eagle- 
wings  of  Augustine  overshadow  the  Gospel,  he  did  not  exhaust  the  right  of 
all  Christians  to  handle  the  Gospel. 

2  Bernardi,  Ep.  xi.  ad  Innocent.  “  Nihil  videt  per  speculum  et  inaenigmate, 
sed  facie  ad  faciem  omnia  intuetur  ”  is  the  mystic’s  characteristic  complaint 
of  the  logician  (Ep.  192).  Abelard’s  Comments  on  the  Hexaemeron  (Martene 
and  Durand,  Thcs.  Nov.  Anecd.)  is  chiefly  remarkable  for  its  curious  scientific  (?) 
speculations. 

3  “  Sicut  monstruosi  sunt  nominis  sic  etiam  monstruosi  dogmatis.”  W.  de 
St.  Thierry. 

4  Haureau,  p.  384. 


262  The  Sentences . 

St.  Victor,  but  bis  commentaries  are  little  more  than  a 
compilation  from  Hilary,  Ambrose  and  Augustine.1  The 
Fathers  lent  themselves  to  his  dogmatic  method  far  more 
easily  than  the  Scripture  which  he  is  too  ready  to  explain 
away.  He  only  refers  to  Aristotle  incidentally,2  and  is 
always  cautiously  on  his  guard  against  the  suspicion  of  in¬ 
dependence.  His  ideal  writer  is  John  Damascene,  whom  he 
called  the  greatest  of  the  Greek  teachers,  and  whose  book  “  on 
the  orthodox  faith,”  in  which  he  expressly  says  iyco  roLjapovv 
ipLov  ovhev,  had  been  translated  by  order  of  Pope  Eugenius.3 
It  is  only  in  the  form  of  his  Liber  sententiarum,  and  its 
speculative  spirit  that  the  Lombard  shows  whose  pupil  he 
had  been.4  He  followed  the  Church  and  “  used  the  weightiest 
words  of  the  weightiest  Fathers  in  the  weightiest  manner,” 
but  the  method  of  questions  and  “  distinctions  ”  enabled  him 
to  combine  disputation  with  deference,  and  “to  comment 
and  discuss  without  limit  within  the  range  of  constituted 
authority.”  The  publication  of  the  Sentences  formed  an  epoch. 
It  showed  that  though  the  world  of  First  Principles  was 
“  surrounded  by  Stygian  waters  ”  the  spirit  of  inquiry  might, 
with  at  least  a  semblance  of  freedom,  launch  into  the  open  sea 
of  inference  and  deduction.  The  Sentences  of  Peter  became 
the  text-book  of  scholasticism.  They  marked  out  its  mission, 
which  was  not  to  discover  but  to  formulate.5  They  were  a 

1  Sent.  i.  ;  Dist.  19. 

2  Sent.  ii.  ;  Dist.  i.  §  5  ;  and  Maurice  refers  specially  to  his  comments  on 
John  i.  9,  1  Tim.  ii.  4. 

3  In  one  sense  John  of  Damascus  may  he  regarded  as  the  Father  of  Scholas¬ 
ticism,  for  in  his  Tlriyr)  yvdbcreas  he  was  “the  first  to  apply  Aristotelian 
dialectics  to  traditional  theology.” 

4  Dante,  in  the  lines 

“  L’altro  che  appresso  adorna  il  nostro  coro 
Quel  Pietro  fu,  che  con  la  poverella 
Offerse  a  santa  Chiesa  il  suo  Tesoro,” 

alludes  to  the  Prologue  to  the  Sentences  where  he  says  that  he  desires,  with 
the  poor  widow,  to  cast  something  out  of  his  poverty  into  the  treasure  of 
the  Church ;  “  Cupientes  aliquid  de  tenuitate  nostra  cum  paupercula  in 

gazophylacium  Domini  mittere.” 

6  It  was  “  the  first  of  a  long  series  of  attempts  to  obtain  for  the  doctrines  of 
the  Church  a  scientific  system.”  Schwegler,  Hist,  of  Philos.  E.  T.  p.  144  ; 

Hist.  Litt.  de  la  France,  xii.  589.  “  Round . the  Sentences . 

the  theology  of  the  Schoolman  was  trained  and  trammelled  over  a  rigid  net¬ 
work  of  dialectics,  where  the  flower  often  lost  its  perfume  and  the  fruit 
perished.”  Mullinger,  i.  63. 


Aristotle. 


263 


convenient  handbook,  which,  with  the  Summa  of  Thomas 
Aquinas,  showed  all  inquiring  spirits  how  they  could  unite 
the  restless  impatience  of  the  human  mind  with  the  arbitrary 
determinations  of  the  spiritual  authority.  During  the  follow¬ 
ing  centuries  the  Summa  and  the  Sentences  were  studied  and 
expounded  far  more  than  the  Scriptures.1  And  without 
professedly  revolting  from  the  hard  and  arid  system  which 
was  thus  established,  mysticism  could  take  refuge  in  allegoris¬ 
ing  the  Song  of  Songs,  and  in  dreaming  over  “  the  Celestial 
Hierarchy”  of  the  supposed  Areopagite.  In  both  schools 
Divinity  was  “reduced  into  an  art,  as  into  a  cistern,  and 
the  stream  of  doctrine  derived  from  thence.”  2 

The  fortunes  of  Aristotle  in  the  mediaeval  Church  were 
strange.  Through  the  Alexandrian  schools,  both  Jewish  and 
Christian,  Plato  had  exerted  no  small  influence  over  the 
discussions  of  theology,  but  during  the  early  centuries  the 
works  of  Aristotle  were  in  obscurity.  His  dialectical  methods 
had  first  been  used  by  heretics,  and  especially  by  Artemon 
and  Theodotus  in  arguing  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 
No  less  than  twenty  of  the  Fathers  from  Justin  to  Cyril  speak 
disparagingly  of  him.  “  They  place  the  whole  virulence  of 
their  poisons  in  dialectical  disputation,”  says  Ambrose  of 
the  Arians.3  “  Wretched  Aristotle,”  exclaims  Tertullian, 
“  who  trained  the  Yalentinians  in  dialectics  !  ”  4  But  the 
works  of  the  great  Stagirite  crept  into  the  Church  imper¬ 
ceptibly,  and  in  spite  of  her  opposition.  At  first  only  his 
Organon  and  Categories  were  known  to  the  Western  world. 
The  school-discussions  of  the  Middle  Ages  were  originated  by 
a  single  passage  from  the  introduction  of  Porphyry  trans- 

1  As  even  Roger  Bacon  complains,  Opus  Minus  (ed.  Brewer),  p.  329. 

2  Bacon,  Advancement  of  Learning. 

3  De  Fide ,  21,  5  ;  comp.  Serm.  xxii.  in  Ps.  118. 

4  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  says  tliat  “the  Christians  knew  nothing  of  the 
craftiness  of  Aristotle’s  craft.”  Orat.  xxvi.  St.  Vincent  Ferrer  was  glad  to 
quote  the  assertion  of  Jerome  :  “  Quod  Aristoteles  et  Plato  in  inferno  sunt.” 
Mullinger,  i.  122.  Roger  Bacon  said  :  “Had  I  the  power,  I  would  have  all 

the  works  of  Aristotle  burnt,  as  it  is  hut  waste  time . to  study  them,” 

Opus  Minus  (ed.  Brewer),  pp.  322-330.  Grotius  observes  that  many  Platonists 
(Clemens,  Origen,  &c.)  became  Christians,  but  none— or  very  few — of  the 
Aristotelians.  De  Stud.  Instil.  (1645),  p.  221. 


264 


Study  of  Aristotle. 

lated  by  Boethius.1  He  said  that  to  understand  Aristotle 
it  was  necessary  to  know  the  meaning  of  the  five  words 
genus ,  differentia,  species,  proprium  and  accidens,  but  he  would 
abstain  from  the  more  difficult  question  about  genera  and 
species,  whether  they  existed  or  only  had  a  place  in  the 
naked  intellect,  whether  they  were  corporeal  or  incorporeal, 
end  whether  separated  from  sensible  things  or  placed  in 
them,  or  consisting  around  them.  The  questions  whether 
universals  are  real  or  are  only  mental  conceptions,  and 
whether  they  do  or  do  not  exist  apart  from  individuals 
wasted  more  money,  as  John  of  Salisbury  said,  than  the 
treasures  of  Croesus,  and  occupied  more  time  than  it  took  the 
Caesars  to  rule  the  world.2 

At  the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century  (from  1210 
to  1225)  all  the  works  of  Aristotle  became  known  together 
with  those  of  Arab  philosophy  through  the  medium  of 
Spanish  Jews.3  They  were  received  with  profound  distrust. 
The  errors  of  Amalric  of  Bene  and  David  of  Dinant  were 
attributed  to  the  study  of  them,  and  the  use  of  them  was 
thrice  forbidden  by  Papal  infallibility.4  In  spite  of  this 
they  crept  from  the  threshold  to  the  shrine,  and  added 
new  and  predominant  influences  to  the  scholastic  method. 
The  Popes  soon  saw  their  mistake  in  opposing  a  science  which 
was  placed  absolutely  at  the  disposal  of  their  most  extravagant 
claims.  It  is  said  that  Aristotle’s  Ethics  were  sometimes 


1  “  Un  rayon  derobe  4  Pantiquite  la  produisit  ;  Pantiquite  tout  entiere 
\i.e.  the  Revival  of  Letters]  l’etouffa.  ”  V.  Cousin,  Fragments  Philos,  p.  82. 
See,  too,  J.  B.  Mullinger,  Hist,  of  Cambr.  pp.  50-54  ;  Bain’s  Mental  and  Moral 
Science,  App.  A. 

2  Johann.  Sarisb.  Polycrat.  vii.  12. 

3  Through  Avicenna  in  the  East,  and  Averroes  in  the  West  they  passed 
from  Mohammedans  to  Jews.  Maimonides  translated  them  into  Hebrew.  See 
Renan,  Averroes,  p.  52  ;  Jourdain,  Becherches  critiques  ;  Prantl,  Gcsch.  d.  Logik, 
iii.  3.  Up  till  1100  only  the  Logic  of  Aristotle  was  known,  and  that  only 
partially.  Mullinger,  Hist,  of  Cambr.  i.  29. 

4  In  1209,  1215,  and  1231,  by  Gregory  IX.  (See  Landerer  s.v.  Scholasticism 
in  Herzog.)  A  Provincial  council  ordered  that  Masters  of  Arts  should  not 
philosophise  but  “  satagant  fieri  Theododacti  ”  and  should  only  discuss  questions 
“  quae  per  libros  theologicos  et  Sanctorum  Patrurn  tractatus  valeant  terminari.” 
Lanfranc  had  expressed  his  strong  preference  for  “sacred  authorities”  over 
“dialectics.”  “Neclibri  Aristotelis  nec  commenta  legantur.”  Cone.  Paris. 
a.d.  1209.  The  prohibition  was  withdrawn  by  Urban  Y.  in  1366. 


Scholasticism. 


265 


read  in  Churches.1  It  is  certain  that  they  were  more  often 
referred  to  than  the  Decalogue,2  and  that  more  pains  were 
taken  to  connect  Aristotle  with  Christianity  than  to  explain 
the  relation  between  Moses  and  Christ.  Before  the  close 
of  the  thirteenth  century  the  world  saw  the  full  develop¬ 
ment  of  that  scholastic  theology  which  may  be  most  shortly 
defined  as  “  the  reproduction  of  ancient  philosophy  under  the 
control  of  ecclesiastical  doctrine.5’  It  reminded  Luther  of  a 
centaur,  because  it  was  a  mixture  of  divine  utterances  and 
philosophic  reasons.  Erasmus  says  that  theologians  in  his 
day  “  thought  that  all  was  up  with  the  Christian  religion 
if  any  one  rejected  the  decrees  of  Aristotle.”  3  Aristotle  was 
called  the  “  vraecursor  Christi  in  naturalibnsh  On  the 
other  hand,  the  literal  sense  of  Scripture  appeared  so  worth¬ 
less  to  the  dominant  dogmatism  that  Hugo  compares  it 
to  mud  used  to  anoint  the  eyes  of  the  blind.  “  Biblicus 
theologies  ”  became  a  term  of  contempt.4 

How  rapidly  the  influence  of  Aristotle  spread  may  be  seen 
in  the  works  of  Alexander  of  Hales  (f  1245), 5  Albertus 
Magnus  (t  1280),  and  Thomas  Aquinas  (t  1274)  who  became 
acquainted  with  his  Metaphysics  through  the  medium  of 
Averroes  and  Arabic  translations.  They  did  not  in  any 
way  advance  or  alter  dogma  :  they  only  systematised  it, 
furnished  it  vrith  an  apparatus  of  scientific  nomenclature, 
and  transferred  it  from  the  Church  to  the  School.6  They  all 

1  So  Mel  ancht  lion  complains  Apolog.  A.  C.  62  ;  Mathesius,  Vit.  Luth.  i. 
712  ;  Brucker,  iii.  886  ;  Gabriel  Biel  is  said  to  have  offended  in  this  way. 

2  “  Quidam  Doctor  Theologus  rogatus  de  Decalogo,  negabat  se  ejusmodi 
librum  in  Bibliotheca  umquam  liabuisse.”  Ridderus,  He  Eruditione  (1680), 
p.  40. 

3  Erasm.  Schol.  p.  258.  • 

4  See  Liebner,  Hugo  von  S.  Victore ,  p.  128  ;  Praenott.  Elucid.  5. 

5  He  is  the  first  who  definitely  quotes  Averroes,  and  the  first  commentator 
on  the  Sentences.  See  Renan,  Averroes,  p.  176  ;  Haureau,  i.  402  ;  Ueberweg, 
i.  407,  and  on  the  Arabs  generally,  Munk,  Melanges,  p.  313,  sq.  Owing  to 
Arabian  influences  Aristotle  “passed  from  the  consulship  to  the  Dictatorship 
of  Philosophy.”  Aristoteles  was  made  into  the  anagram,  iste  sol  erat.  In 
1629  the  Sorbonne  decreed  that  to  contradict  Aristotle  was  to  contradict 
the  Church. 

6  Card.  Hergenrother  defines  scholasticism  as  “  dialektisch  geordnete,  system- 
atische  Theologie,  die  an  die  Philosophie  sich  anlehnte  und  die  Dogmen  theils 
als  vernunftgemass,  theils  als  fiber  jede  vernfinftige  Einsprache  erhaben  zn 
begrunden  suchte.”  Kirchcngeschichle ,  i.  952  ;  compare  Ueberweg,  i.  355. 


266 


Scholasticism . 


practised  the  dialectic  method,  and  thought  that  they  were 
establishing  religious  truth,  while  they  were  only  framing  a 
technical  language.  Following  the  example  of  Abelard  1  they 
fatally  misapplied  the  maxim  of  Aristotle  that  “to  frame 
doubts  well  ”  (to  8ia7ropr)aaL  tcaXcos')  is  a  service  to  the 
discovery  of  truth.2  They  delighted  their  fettered  ingenuity 
with  the  semblance  of  emancipation  by  furnishing  vain 
answers  to  insoluble  questions.  Their  theology  is  a  science 
of  definition  in  which  analyses  of  language  are  taken  for 
discoveries  of  fact,  and  in  which  a  congeries  of  doubts  is 
met  by  a  concatenation  of  baseless  assumptions.  The  result 
is  a  dull  mythology  in  which  abstractions  are  deified,  not  in 
the  gracious  atmosphere  of  Poetry,  but  in  the  sterile  desert 
of  logical  discussion.  They  were  thus  enabled  to  unite 
obedience  with  rationalism,  and  the  Hierarchy  successfully 
disguised  intense  intolerance  under  an  apparent  permission 
to  philosophise  at  will.3 

In  exegesis  we  see  the  Schoolmen  at  their  worst.  Scholas- 

O 

ticism  treats  the  letter  of  Scripture,  even  in  its  plainest 

1  Abelard’s  motto  had  been,  Ecclus.  xix.  4,  “  Qui  cito  credit  levis  est 
eorde.”  “  Dubitando  ad  inquisitionem  venimus,  inquirendo  veritalem  percip- 
imus.”  Sic  et  Non,  p.  16,  ed.  Cousin.  This  resembles  the  remark  of 
Diderot:  “  Le  Scepticisme  est  done  le  premier  pas  vers  la  verite.”  Thomas 
Aquinas  says  that  Theology  has  no  need  of  Philosophy  except  by  way  of 
illustration,  because  it  receives  its  principles  immediately  from  God.  Summa, 
I.  qu.  1,  4,  5. 

2  Arist.  Metaph.  iii.  1.  See  Launoy,  De  varia  Aristotelis  fortuna  in  Acad. 
Paris.  Hampden,  Bampt.  Led.  p.  63.  In  1516,  Luther  wrote  to  J.  Lange, 
“  Nihil  ita  ardet  animus  quam  histrionem  ilium  qui  tarn  vere  graced  larva 
Ecclcsiam  lusit,  multis  revelare  ignominiamquc  ejus  cunctis  ostendere  ” 
(Briefe,  i.  15),  and  in  1517  “  Aristoteles  descendit  paulatim  .  .  .  ad  ruinarn 
prope  futuram  sempiternam.”  In  his  letter  to  the  German  nobility  he  com¬ 
plains  that,  Aristotle,  that  blind  heathen,  has  replaced  Christ.  See  further 
extracts  from  his  Ilesponsio  ad  Prieratium  in  Gieseler,  v.  233.  Roger  Bacon 
stood  almost  alone  in  the  13th  century  in  protesting  alike  against  servile 
devotion  to  the  Fathers,  and  against  the  authority  of  Aristotle,  all  of  whose 
books  he  said  that  he  would  burn  if  he  had  the  power.  “  Haec  aetas  ”  he  says 
“  languet  et  asininat  circum  male  intellecta,” 

3  See  Hampden,  Bampt.  Lectures.  A  lively  conception  of  the  barren  dis¬ 
cussion  of  that  age  may  be  derived  from  the  writings  of  John  of  Salisbury, 
particularly  the  Metalogicus  and  Polycraticus, 

“  Quaevis 

Litera  sordescit,  logica  sola  placet.” — id.  Entheticus. 

I  have  not  touched  on  Anselm,  who  was  rather  a  theologian  than  an  exegete. 
See  Remusat,  St.  Anselm,  p.  478. 


Albertus  Magnus.  267 

histories,  as  an  enigma  which  veils  the  latest  after-thoughts 
of  theology.  It  destroys  the  real  meaning  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  in  the  attempt  to  make  it  speak  the  language  of  Church 
tradition.  No  one  can  doubt  the  greatness  and  goodness  of 
Albertus,1  yet  what  can  be  more  essentially  irreverent  in 
substance  or  more  empty  in  method  than  his  discussion  of 
the  reasons  why  it  was  necessary  for  an  Angel  to  announce 
to  Mary  the  immaculate  conception,  and  not  for  God  to  be 
His  own  messenger  ? 2  The  greatness  of  the  Schoolmen  was  so 
paralysed  by  vicious  methods,  traditional  errors,  and  foregone 
conclusions,  that  many  of  their  comments  on  Scripture  become 
not  only  inconsequent  but  childish.  “Let  not  the  foot 
of  pride  come  against  me.”  3  Why  ‘Hoot”  and  not  “feet”? 
asked  Albertus.  Because,  he  says,  “  he  who  walks  on  one 
foot  falls  more  easily  than  he  who  walks  on  two  ! 4  Could 
anything  be  less  elucidatory  than  this  distortion  of  the 
simplest  passages  ?  5  His  commentary  on  the  Minor 
Prophets  is  nothing  but  a  dry  compilation,  paraphrastic, 
verbose,  and  overladen  with  the  formalism  of  useless  dis¬ 
tinctions.  The  comment  on  the  opening  clause  of  Joel  is 
as  follows.  “The  word  of  the  Lord  that  came  to  Joel: ” 
Verbum  is  used  in  the  singular  because  the  Word,  so  far  as  it 
is  in  God,  is  one  and  uncreate,  yet  is  the  reason  and  source 
and  form  of  many  words.  This  Word  was  made  {factum  est) 
to  Joel,  not  so  far  as  it  is  in  the  word,  but  in  the  mind  of  the 
Prophet.  Joel  calls  himself  “  son  of  Pethuel,  that  spiritually 

1  “  Questi  die  m’e  a  destra  piu  vicino 

Krate  e  maestro  fummi  ;  ed  esso  Alberto 
E  di  Cologna  ;  ed  io  Thomas  d’ Aquino. 

—Dante,  Farad,  x.  97. 

The  works  of  Albertus  filled  twenty-one  folios,  of  which  five  are  commentaries. 
But  the  Doctor  Universalis  does  not  seem  to  have  known  either  Greek,  Arabicj 
or  Hebrew,  and  was  very  feeble  in  history  and  philology.  See  Stock/,  ii.  35s! 
Prantl  calls  him  a  mere  compiler  and  “  ein  unklarer  Kopf,  und  nicht’befahigt 
lrgend  eine  grundsatzliche  Auffassung  hinauszudenken  ”  ( Gesch .  d.  Logik, 

n1,  »89Vr-  He?ays’  “  durchweg  Alles  was  er  sclireibt  ist  nur  fremdes 
Gut.  His  real  greatness  was  in  science,  in  which  he  was  very  eminent. 

2  See  Rosenmiiller,  Hist.  Int.  v.  250. 

3  Ps.  xxx vi.  ii. 

4  This  takes  us  back  to  the  region  of  pure  Rabbinism. 

®  See  by  way  of  specimen  his  comment  on  Ps.  xxxi.  9-12.  Ilis  notes  are 
chiefly  glosses,  burdened  with  unsifted  parallel  passages. 


268 


Scholastic  Exegesis . 

as  well  as  carnally  li©  may  be  known  to  have  d©sc6nd©d  from 
so  o-reat  a  father.”  Here,  omitting  som©  ns©l©ss  and  irrelevant 
parallels,  we  have  first  a  mere  play  on  words ;  then  a  passage 
borrowed  from  the  Glossa  /  and  lastly  the  idle  Jewish  fancy 
that  when  a  Prophet  names  his  father,  the  father  was  also  a 
prophet.1  “  That  which  the  palmerworm  hath  left  hath  the 
locust  eaten? 2  This  verse  is  first  explained  by  a  mosaic  of 
parallel  places,  which,  being  only  taken  from  the  Vulgate,  is 
entirely  meaningless.  Then  we  are  told  that  Jerome  takes 
these  species  of  locusts  literally  of  Assyrians,  Chaldaeans, 
Babylonians,  &c. ;  and  morally  to  mean  sadness,  joy,  fear, 
and  hope  ;  and  that  Gregory  takes  them  morally  to  mean 
either  lust,  vain-glory,  gluttony,  and  anger,  or  (rather) 
incipient  passion,  instability,  habit,  and  despair.  As  to  any 
attempt  to  find  the  real  or  principal  sense  there  is  none. 

« For  in  Mount  Sion  and  in  Jerusalem  shall  be  deliverance ” 3 
that  is,  says  Albertus,  in  the  eminence  of  a  speculative  and 
the  peace  of  an  active  life.  “  The  mountains  shall  drop  down 
new  wine ,  and  the  hills  shall  flow  with  milk?  4  The  mountains, 
he  says,  mean  the  heights  of  the  three  Persons  in  the  Holy 
Trinity,  or  even  the  heights  of  the  Apostles;  and  the  hills, 
that  is  the  heights  of  the  angels  and  saints,  shall  flow  with 
the  truth  of  the  white  sweet  doctrine  of  the  Humanity  of 
Christ.  “  Egypt  shall  be  a  desolation  and  Edom  a  desolate 
wilderness  ” — that  is,  spiritual  and  carnal  sins  shall  be  driven 
where  God  and  the  Saints  shall  not  be,  because  they  have 
shed  the  blood  of  martyrs  !  This  is  not  exegesis  but  homily- 
work  of  the  poorest  description,  allegorising  passages  which  of 
themselves  are  perfectly  clear.  “  Let  the  bridegroom  go  forth 
of  his  chamber  and  the  bride  out  of  her  closet.  5  That  is,  says 
the  Pseudo-Haymo  of  Halberstadt,  “  let  Christ  go  out  of  the 
bosom  of  the  Father,  and  the  flesh  of  Christ  from  the  Virgin’s 

1  See  Merx,  Joel ,  p.  369.  2  Joel  i.  4. 

3  Joel  ii.  32.  4Joeliii.  18. 

5  Joel  ii.  16.  We  find  the  same  explanations  with  only  slight  dillerences 
of  detail  in  Hugo  of  St.  Victor,  Remigius,  Rupert  of  Deutz,  the  Glossa  Ordi- 
nanci ,  &c.  The  exegesis  of  Albertus  Magnus  like  that  of  Peter  Lombard  is 
chiefly  derived  third  or  fourth  hand  from  the  Catenae  and  glosses.  See  R. 
Simon,  Hist,  des  Comment,  pp.  468,  sq. 


Thomas  Aquinas. 


269 


womb,”  The  explanation,  which  is  as  old  as  the  Clavis  of 
Pseudo-Melito,  reduces  the  passage  as  a  whole  to  sheer 
nonsense.1  It  illustrates  not  only  the  helpless  secondhandness 
of  the  mediaeval  commentators,  but  also  the  absurdity  to  which 
their  systematic  allegorising  often  led  them.  It  shows  still 
more  their  fatal  habit  of  looking  at  words  without  their 
connexion,  and  at  texts  without  their  context.  “  Or, 
continues  Pseudo-Haymo — for  the  expositions  of  his  day  are 
always  liberal  of  their  futilities — “  the  bridegroom  ”  may  mean 
the  divine  word,  and  “  the  bride  ”  (in  the  usual  language  of 
mysticism)  the  faithful  soul.  Mediaeval  exposition  very 
rarely  explained  the  real  meaning  of  the  sacred  writers.2  It 
was  a  specious  transition  to  a  totally  different  order  of 
thought. 

O 

Even  Thomas  of  Aquino,  with  all  his  nobleness  and  great¬ 
ness,  profound  as  a  thinker,  incomparable  as  a  theologian,  is 
least  successful  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture.3  Imbued 
with  the  fatal  dream  of  the  fourfold  sense  of  Scripture,  he  is 
meagre  in  the  explanation  of  the  literal  sense,  but  diffuse  in 


1  Pitra,  Spicil.  Solesm.  iii.  75,  ap.  Merx,  Joel,  p.  377. 

2  Even  Abelard  looked  on  the  necessity  for  allegory  as  a  proof  of  “inspira¬ 
tion,”  and  on  this  ground  extended  it  to  Plato.  Introd.  ad  Theol.  i. 
p.  46. 

3  Tholuck  in  his  monograph  Be  Thoma  Aquinate  et  Abaelardo  interpretibus 
N.  T.  says  “  Quantum  ad  interprctandi  dogmatieum  genus  attinet  hie  ei  campus 
laudum,  hie  meriti  corona.  Est  argumenti  dogmatici  interpres  diligens,  in- 
defessus  qui  ne  voculam  quidem  praeterit  quin  excutiat.”  Erasmus  said  of 
him  (on  Pom.  i.  2),  “  Meo  quidem  anirno  nullus  est  recentiorum  theologorum 
cuiparsit  diligentia,  cuisanius  ingenium,  cui  solidior  eruditio.”  On  his  work 
as  an  exegete  see  Vaughan,  Life  of  St.  Thomas,  ii.  567,  sqq.  The  present 
Pope  (Leo  XIII.)  is  the  fourteenth  who  has  loaded  St.  Thomas  with  eulogies. 
In  his  Encyclical  Aeterni  Patris  (Aug.  4,  1879),  while  not  vouching  for  over- 
subtlety  or  over  rashness,  or  what  is  improbable,  or  not  in  accordance  with 
the  demonstrated  doctrines  of  a  later  age,  he  recommends  the  study  of  his 
writings  with  a  glowing  eulogium  to  the  whole  Christian  world.  “  Far  above 
all  other  scholastic  doctors,”  says  the  Encyclical,  “towers  Thomns  Aquinas, 
their  Master  and  Prince.  Greatly  enriched  as  he  was  with  the  science  of  God 
and  the  science  of  man,  he  is  likened  to  the  sun,  for  he  warmed  the  whole 
earth  with  the  fire  of  his  holiness,  and  filled  the  whole  earth  with  the  splen¬ 
dour  of  his  teaching.”  According  to  Natalis  he  found  Philosophy  wandering 
like  Agar  in  the  wilderness,  and  sent  her  back  to  be  a  bondslave  in  the  tent  of 
Abraham.  Bucer  said,  “Tolle  Thomam  et  Eccl.  Bomanam  subvertam.”  Ven¬ 
tura  says,  “II  n’y  a  aucune  erreur  qu’il  n’ait  prevue,  refutee,  pulverises 
d’avance”  (La  Raison  philosophique,  ii.  129).  Catena  Aurea  is  a  later  name. 
He  himself  in  his  Dedication  calls  it  continua  expositio,  and  in  older  editions 
it  is  called  glossa  continua. 


270 


His  Exegesis. 

speculative  discussions  and  dialectic  developments.  At  the 
beginning  of  his  comment  on  Job,  he  goes  off  into  a  long 
discussion  about  good  and  bad  angels.  When  the  patience  ot 
Job  is  mentioned  he  gives  an  essay  on  the  views  of  the  ancient 
philosophers  respecting  that  virtue.  He  is  so  devoted  to 
Augustine,  as  to  have  originated  the  saying  that  the  soul  of 
Augustine  had  passed  into  him  by  metempsychosis.1  In  his 
Catena  on  the  Gospels  he  compiles  mainly  from  twenty-two 
Greek  and  twenty  Latin  writers,  and  accepts  without  hesitation 
their  most  tasteless  and  empty  allegories.2  “Masterly  and  archi¬ 
tectonic  ”  as  is  the  skill  shown  in  that  work  which  is  “  nearly 
perfect  as  a  conspectus  of  patristic  interpretations,” 3  yet 
being  a  catena  only  it  did  not  contribute  to  exegetic  progress. 
Thomas  was  acquainted  with  the  writings  of  Maimonides 
and  of  Averroes,  and  has  gained  something  from  them  as  he 
shows  in  his  remarks  on  prophecy.  He  does  not,  however, 
venture  to  mention  the  Jewish  writer,  whose  works  he  was 
quoting  side  by  side  with  those  of  Jerome  and  Gregory,  at 
the  very  time  that  the  brethren  of  his  own  Dominican  order 
were  condemning  those  works  to  the  flames  at  Paris.4  But 
neither  Greek,  nor  Arab,  nor  Jewish  learning  produced  any 
adequate  effect  on  the  exegesis  of  the  Schoolmen.  Even  in 
the  hands  of  St.  Thomas  it  is  dependent,  traditional,  un¬ 
progressive.  He  repeats  the  worst  excesses  of  Hilary  and 
even  of  Remigius.  Thus  John  ate  locusts  and  wild  honey, 
because  his  preaching  was  to  the  crowds  sweet  like  honey, 
but  short  of  flight  like  locusts  (Rem.).  By  John  (i.e.  “the 
Grace  of  God  ”)  is  signified  Christ  who  brought  grace  to  the 
world ;  and  by  his  camel’s-hair  robe  is  indicated  the  Church 

1  Sixt.  Senens.  Bibl.  iv.  308. 

2  Frigerio  ( Vita  di  S.  Thomas ,  ii.  115)  speaks  of  his  inexplicable  reverence 
for  the  Fathers. 

3  Cardl.  Newman,  Pref.  to  vol.  i.  of  Catena  Aurea,  Oxford,  1841  ;  and 
Vaughan’s  Life  of  St.  Thomas,  ii.  547-574.  The  exquisite  superiority  of  St. 
Chrysostom  to  other  patristic  commentators  is  constantly  evinced  in  this 
Catena.  A  considerable  drawback,  however,  to  its  usefulness  arises  from  the 
fact  that  so  many  of  the  extracts  are  from  spurious  books. 

4  See  Merx,  Joel,  p.  354.  Jaraczewsky  in  Zeitschr.  fur  Philos,  xlvi.  points 
out  his  influence  on  Scholasticism,  and  especially  on  Albertus.  For  the 
influence  of  Averroes  see  Kenan,  Averroes,  pp.  231-236. 


Futile  Ingenuity.  271 

of  the  Gentiles  (Hil.).  Even  throughout  the  simplest 
narratives  of  the  Gospels  he  allegorises  incessantly.  Besides 
this  he  is  full  of  contradictions.1  A  large  part  of  his 
method  consists  in  the  ingenious  juxtaposition  of  passages 
of  which  the  verbal  similarity  depends  only  upon  the 
Yulgate.  From  these  imaginary  identities  of  expression,  by 
a  method  which  seems  to  have  survived  from  the  days  of 
Hiliel,  he  deduces  systems  extremely  ingenious  hut  utterly 
without  foundation.  I  need  but  mention  one  salient  instance  2 
in  the  arrangement  which  lies  at  the  base  of  his  commentary 
of  700  pages  on  the  Pauline  Epistles.  The  whole  scheme  is 
made  to  turn  on  the  phrase  “  a  chosen  vessel .”  St.  Thomas 
arrives  at  the  conclusion  that  all  the  fourteen  Epistles  (for  he 
follows  the  popular  view  in  attributing  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  to  St.  Paul)  treat  of  grace,  and  that  the  Epistle  to 
the  Galatians  is  a  sort  of  appendix  to  the  treatment  of  grace 
as  it  is  in  the  sacraments  ! 3  It  would  be  difficult  to  conceive 
anything  more  ingeniously  misleading,  more  historically 
groundless,  more  essentially  partial,  inadequate,  and  mis¬ 
taken,  than  this  celebrated  scheme  of  the  Epistles  in  which 
every  critical  and  historical  consideration,  as  well  as  every 
human  element  in  the  origin  of  the  Epistles  is  fatally  ignored 
in  order  that  they  may  be  symmetrically  arranged  into  an 
artificial  diagram  of  abstract  doctrines.4  The  mere  index 
to  the  word  “  Grace  ”  in  the  chief  edition  of  the  works  of  St. 
Thomas  fills  many  folio  columns.  How  much  has  any  reader 
really  added  to  his  understanding  of  the  Scriptures,  when  he 
has  read  the  multitudinous  pages  to  which  the  index  refers  ? 
In  Divinity,  as  Bacon  says,  there  cannot  be  this  perfection  and 

1  Seethe  fifth  Index  to  the  Summa  (Migne,  i.  De  Antilogiis). 

2  His  doctorial  lecture  on  Ps.  cv.  13  (see  Vaughan’s  Life,  ii.  113)  gives  a 
good  specimen  of  his  manner.  For  his  views  about  allegory,  tropology,  and 
anagogy,  see  Summ.  I.  i.  art.  x. 

3  See  Opp.  vi.  3  (Venet.  1745). 

4  “  11  ne  peut  etre  question  de  progres  dans  un  tel  ordre  d’exposition.  .  .  . 
Partout  ce  sent  les  memes  textes  decoupes  et  separea  de  ce  qui  les  expliqne, 
les  meme  syllogisines  triomphants,  mais  posant  sur  le  vide,  les  memes  defauts 
de  critique  historique,  provenant  de  la  confusion  des  dates  et  des  milieux.” 
Penan,  Souvenirs,  p.  281. 


272 


Bonaventura. 


completeness.  We  cannot  have  the  form  of  a  total  when 
there  is  but  matter  for  a  part. 

We  can  hardly  wonder  that  after  his  rapturous  trance  at 
Naples,  Thomas  of  Aquino  dropped  the  labour  of  his 
Summa  and  refused  to  write  anything  more.1  He  had  seen 
such  visions,  he  said,  in  the  ecstasy  of  his  long  illness  as  to 
reduce  to  insignificance  all  that  he  had  hitherto  published. 
He  so  far  yielded  to  the  importunity  of  friends  as  to  begin 
dictating  a  commentary  on  the  Canticles,  but  he  died  in  the 
midst  of  the  task.  There  was  in  him  a  vein  of  pure 
mysticism,2  which  we  should  hardly  have  suspected  when  we 
read  the  pages  of  the  Summa,  so  entirely  free  from  rhetoric  or 
emotion — •“  clear  as  water,  passionless  as  marble,  regular  as 
mechanism,  cold  as  ice.” 

Mysticism  and  scholasticism  were  even  more  commingled  in 
the  writings  of  St.  Thomas’s  great  contemporary,  the  Seraphic 
Doctor.  In  Bonaventura  (t  1274)  indeed  the  mystic  and 
Neoplatonist  predominated;  but  the  scholasticism  of  his  day 
affected  his  writings  no  less  than  those  of  the  two  great  monks 
of  St.  Victor.3  Accepting  the  supernatural  infallibility  of  every 
word  of  Scripture,  his  mode  of  commenting  upon  it  is  pro¬ 
foundly  unscriptural.  Some  notion  of  his  wearisome  prolixity 
may  be  derived  from  his  comment  on  “  God  saw  the  light 
that  it  was  good.”  This  verse  is  made  the  excuse  for  all  sorts 
of  diffuse  and  irrelevant  remarks  about  vision,  philosophy,  and 
light,  of  which  this  is  but  one  part  of  one  sentence.  “  If  truth 
is  not,  it  is  true  that  truth  is  not;  something  therefore  is 
true  ;  and  if  something  is  true,  it  is  true  that  there  is  truth ; 
therefore,  if  truth  is  not  there  is  truth.  For  truth  prevails 
above  all  things.”  But  perhaps  nothing  more  is  wanted  to 
show  the  absolute  lack  of  all  exegetic  insight  than  Bona- 

1  He  said  to  his  friend,  Brother  Reginald,  “Omnia  qnae  scripsi  videntnr 
mihi  paleae  respectu  eorum  qnae  vidi.  ”  Prooem.  De  Vit.  S.  Thom. 
A  quin. 

2  Corderius  says  that  he  derives  almost  all  his  theology  from  Dionysius 
(Migne,  i.  96). 

3  He  gives  his  views  of  exegesis  in  Principium  S.  Scripturae.  See  Tsagoge 
in  Script.  Sacr.  in  which  he  says  the  New  Testament  is  only  the  Old  spiritually 
expounded. 


His  Exegesis. 


Li  6 

ventnra’s  application  of  the  Psalter  to  the  Virgin  Mary.1 
Bonaventura  expatiates  on  the  length,  breadth,  height,  and 
width,  of  Scripture ;  he  says,  that  its  altitude  is  unattainable 
because  of  its  inviolable  authority,  its  plenitude  inexhaustible 
because  of  its  inscrutable  profundity,  its  certitude  infallible 
because  of  its  irrefutable  progress,  its  value  inappreciable 
because  of  its  inestimable  fruit,  its  pulchritude  incontamin- 
able  because  of  its  impermixtible  purity,  and  so  forth  with  all 
the  inexhaustible  verbosity  of  scholastic  eloquence,  and  wfith 
an  artificiality  which  lacks  the  ring  of  genuine  feeling.  This 
supremacy,  he  says,  belongs  to  God’s  Word,  “in  order  that  to 
secular  sciences  which  inflate  the  heart  and  overshadow  the 
intellect,  there  may  be  no  room  for  glorying  against  Holy 
Scripture.”  2  But  his  many-syllabled  eulogy  only  serves  as 
an  introduction  to  an  account  of  the  river  of  Paradise  which 
divides  itself  into  four  heads,  the  rivers  namely  of  histories, 
of  anagogies,  of  allegories,  and  of  tropologies.3  This  fourfold 
river  of  exegesis  had  its  fountain  not,  as  Bonaventura  imagined, 
in  Paradise,  but  partly  in  the  Greek  Stoa  and  partly  in 
the  Jewish  Synagogue.  It  had  broadened  and  deepened  in 
the  works  of  interpreters  who  found  in  the  mystic  sense  a 
facile  way  of  gratifying  ingenuity,  of  concealing  ignorance  and 
of  furnishing  homiletics.  During  the  whole  of  this  period 
Christian  exegesis  resembled  that  of  the  Babbinic  school  of 
Tiberias  in  its  age  of  decadence.  Both  had  their  oral 
tradition  with  which  they  made  the  Word  of  God  of  none 
effect.  The  Fathers  took  the  same  position  as  the  Mishna, 
and  allegory  as  the  Qabbala.  From  Rabbis  and  Alexandrians 

1  Bonaventura  has  been  highly  praised  for  his  method  of  “ explaining 
Scripture  by  Scripture.”  But  in  the  first  place  the  method  is  not  in  the  least 
degree  peculiar  to  him,  and  in  the  next  the  indiscriminate  use  of  “parallel” 
passages,  which  have  nothing  “parallel”  in  them,  leads  in  all  the  Schoolmen 
to  mere  confusion. 

2  Proocm.  in  Breviloquium.  Comp.  Hugo,  Erudit.  Didcisc.  iv.  1  ;  Johann. 
Sarisb.  Polycrat.  vii.  12.  The  sciences  which  reveal  the  laws  of  God  were 
thus  treated  as  menials  “  in  the  service  of  a  mistress  who  had  grown  sluggish 
and  immovable.” 

3  Bonaventura  himself  prefers  to  regard  the  Bible  as  a  book  with  seven 
seals,  and  not  content  even  with  the  fourfold  sense,  he  adds  to  it  three  more 
senses — the  symbolic,  the  synekdochic,  and  the  hyperbolic  1 


274 


Nicolas  of  Lyra. 

the  Christian  teachers  had  taken  without  examination  an 
unscriptural  view  of  inspiration,  and  they  supported  it  by  a 
method  which  had  been  borrowed  directly  from  Pagan 
philosophers.1 

But  we  meet  at  last  with  one  green  island  among  the 
tideless  waves  of  exegetic  commonplace.  Nicolas  of  Lyra  2 
(f  1340)—  the  Doctor  'planus  et  utilis — was  the  Jerome 
of  the  fourteenth  century.  From  him  came  the  revival 
which  reached  its  full  force  more  than  two  centuries  after  he 
had  gone  to  rest.  The  fresh  life  came  from  the  reviving 
studies  of  the  French  and  Spanish  Jews.  The  old  method 
of  Biblical  study,  the  fantastic  child  of  Rabbinism  and  the 
Stoa,  had  long  fallen,  it  has  been  said,  into  a  magic  sleep, 
and  the  trees  rustled  in  vain  over  the  enchanted  castle.  It 
had  drunk  at  the  hands  of  Bede  the  opiate  of  Jerome’s 
vague  wavering  elegant  compilations  ;  and  had  fed  to 
lepletion  upon  the  sermon-material  so  abundantly  supplied 
by  Gregory.  But  meanwhile,  on  the  banks  of  the  Tigris 
and  in  Andalusia,  Jews  trained  in  Arabic  schools  of  wisdom 
had  found  the  charm  to  open  its  closed  eyes.  That  charm 
was  Hebrew  grammar.  A  thoughtful  monk,  sitting  in 
his  lonely  cell,  first  found  its  efficacy  in  his  own  enlighten¬ 
ment,  and  forcing  his  way  through  the  brushwood  and  under¬ 
growth  of  centuries  awoke  the  sleeper.  That  monk  was 
Nicolas  of  Lyra.3 

Since  the  days  of  Ibn  Ezra  (f  1167),  a  change  had  come 
over  the  spirit  of  the  Jewish  commentators.  He  had  dis¬ 
tinguished  between  five  methods  of  Biblical,  commentary  : — 


A  word  of  at  least  passing  recognition  should  be  given  to  the  textual  and 
practical  (though  hardly  to  the  exegetical)  labours  of  Hugo  of  St.  Cher  (fl260) 
who  m  his  Correctors  attempted  some  improvement  of  the  text  of  the 
tA  lls  o°°k  first  made  the  division  of  the  Bible  into  chapters  general. 

His  efforts  were  due  to  the  hints  of  the  greatest  genius  of  the  thirteenth 
century,  Roger  Bacon. 

So<tcal]5d  fro1?  h7is  birthplace,  Lyra,  in  Normandy.  Sixtus  Senensis 

‘N  ‘  1  fl°nQrfn9lus  Yel . ex  Lyra  Brabantiae  oppido.”  Bibl. 

fw  n P‘  1?Fe  seems  to  be  little  or  no  proof  of  the  common  notion 

that  he  was,  on  his  mother’s  side,  of  Jewish  birth.  At  an  early  age  he 
became  a  Franciscan.  J  ° 

Merx,  Bine  Bede  vom  Auslegen. 


Jewish  Exegetes. 


275 


The  Verbal,  which  dwells  on  every  separate  word. 

The  purely  Subjective,  which  pays  no  attention  at  all  to 

tradition. 

The  Allegoric,  which  reads  mysteries  into  the  sacred 
text. 

The  Kabbalistic,  which  develops  secrets  out  of  letters, 
numbers,  and  syllables. 

The  Literal,  which  confines  itself  to  developing  the  actual 
meaning  of  the  writers.1 

Of  these  five  methods  he  had  himself  chosen  the  last.  In 
the  same  century  the  labours  of  the  Qimchis  had  greatly 
facilitated  the  study  of  Hebrew  grammar.  Rashi  (t  1170), 
while  following  traditional  views,  had  done  much  to  elucidate 
the  literal  sense,  and  Maimonides  “  the  Light  of  the  West, 

“  the  Eagle  of  the  Rabbis  ”  (f  1204),  whom  the  stricter 
Jews  of  his  day  regarded  as  a  rationalist,  had  practically 
rejected  much  of  Talmudism,  and  reverting  to  the  written 
Law  had  endeavoured  to  show  by  Aristotelian  and  Alex 
andrian  methods  that  the  written  Law  was  founded  on 
immutable  reason.2  Nicolas  had  studied  Rashi  and  had  often 
followed  him  so  closely  as  to  be  called  Simia  Salomonis .3  He 
seems  intuitively  to  have  seized  on  some  of  the  best  principles 
hitherto  enunciated.  Here  and  there  he  had  met  with  hints 
as  to  the  corruption  of  manuscripts;  the  necessity  for  a 
better  text;  the  importance  of  understanding  the  original 
languages;  the  folly  of  splitting  up  texts  into  endless 
fragments ;  the  difference  between  true  exposition  and  a 
confused  chaos  of  possible  suggestions  ;  the  primary  duty  ol 


1  See  Sale’s  Koran,  p.  87.  0  ...  .  n  ™  qqi  . 

2  On  the  Jewish  mediaeval  interpreters  see  Schrock,  A.  A.  xxv.  8J1  , 
Rosenmiiller,  Hist.  Intcrp.  v.  211,  sq.  ;  Meyer,  l.  85-93  ;  Merx,  Ae/,  -0/- 
‘>96  •  Siegfried  “  Ueber  Kashi’s  Einflnss  ”  (Merx,  Archtv,  l.  431).  In  the  latter 
paper  is  shown  the  extent  of  Kashi’s  influence  over  Luther  as  well  as  over 

"  3°  Kashi  is  the  abbreviated  name  of  Kabbi  Solomon  Jizchaki.  It  was  prob¬ 
ably  from  Kashi  that  Lyra  learnt  the  admirable  old  ru  e  which  lie  renders 
“  ticrivtura  loquitur  secundum  modum  nostrum  loquendi  (note  on  Oen.yni. 
1  “  Recordatus  est”).  Nicolas  says,  “  Intendo  non  solum  doctorum  catholi- 
corum  sed  etiam  Hebraiorum  explanationes,  maxime  K.  Salomon,  qui  inter 
doctores  Hebraeos  locutus  est  rationabilius  ad  declarationem  sensus  literalis 

T  2 


276 


Nicolas  of  Lyra. 


building  all  developments  upon  a  secure  basis  of  the  literal 
sense.  Nicolas  combines  these  views.  He  does  not  ostensibly 
abandon  the  current  opinions.  His  definitions,  divisions, 
and  terminology  show  that  he  is  still  a  Schoolman.1  He 
repeats  the  phrase  that  God  is  the  auctor  principalis  of 
Scripture,  and  follows  Thomas  Aquinas  in  the  remark  that 
the  literal  sense  develops  the  meaning  of  the  words,  and  the 
mystic  sense  the  meaning  of  the  things  which  the  words 
signify.2  He  even  adopts  the  seven  rules  of  Tichonius,  and 
repeats  the  common  definitions  of  the  fourfold  sense,3  and 
gives  the  stock  illustration  which  was  supposed  to  be 
furnished  by  the  word  “Jerusalem.”  On  the  other  hand  he 
evinces  rare  clearness  and  sobriety ;  he  insists  on  the  Protestant 
principle  of  referring  to  the  original ;  he  complains  that  the 
mystic  sense  had  been  almost  allowed  to  choke  ( suffocare )  the 
literal ;  he  says  that  when  the  mystic  exposition  is  discrepant 
from  the  literal  it  is  indecens  et  inepta  ;  4  he  demands  that  the 
literal  sense  alone  should  be  used  in  proving  doctrines.5 
Practically,  therefore,  he  only  admits  two  possible  senses — 


He  characteristically  meets  the  objection  that  “either  man  must  now 
have  a  rib  too  few  and  he  imperfect,  or  must  have  had  one  too  many,  and  be  a 
monster,  ’  by  the  remark  that  a  thing  may  be  superfluous,  ratione  individui , 
but  not  ratione  speciei . 

2  Thom.  Aquin.  Summa,  1,  Qu.  1,  art.  10.  Nicolas  says,  “Habet  ille 
liber  hoc  speciale,  quod  una  litera  continet  plures  sensus.” 

3  To  him  are  attributed  the  lines — 


“  Littera  gesta  docet,  quae  credas  Allegoria, 

Moralis  quid  agas,  quo  tendas  Anagogia  ;  ” 

but  he  only  quotes  them  in  his  first  preface,  where  he  explains  the  four  seuses. 
In  his  second  preface  he  compares  Scripture  to  the  book  written  within  (the 
mystic  sense)  and  without  (the  literal  sense). 

4  “  Vel  saltern  minus  decens  ceteris  paribus  et  apta,”  he  cautiously  adds. 
Lyra  firmly  states  his.  object  in  the  words,  “  Cum  Dei  adjutorio  intendo  circa 
hteralem  sensum  insistere,  et  paucas  valde  et  breves  expositiones  mysticas  ali- 
quando  inter ponere  ;  licet  raroA  Prol.  2. 

5  “Cum  ex  solo  sensu  literali  et  non  ex  mystico  posset  argumentum  fieri 
ad  probandum.  He  wrote  eighty-five  books  of  Postills,  of  which  fifty  were 
literal  ana  thirty-five  moralitates.  The  name  Postilla  is  as  old  as  the  eighth 
century,  and  is  derived  from  post  ilia  ( s.c .  verba  textus).  If  we  read  Nicolas 
°i  y1  a  on  Cen.  l.  after  Hugo  of  St.  Cher  we  see  an  immense  advance.  In 
tiie  allegoric  division  of  the  fourfold  sense  in  Hugo,  “  Creavit  caelum ” 

6C0niej  m.a,^e  the  New  Testament;”  both  Testaments  are  coelum, 

rcgaided  °n the  side  of  Christ’s  Divinity,  terra  on  the  side  of  His  humanity. 

i  an<~  •  TpHaments  are  symbolised  by  the  coverings  of  the  taber¬ 
nacle  (Lx.  xxvi.)  made  opere  plumario.  “  Pluma  est  acns,  acus  vero  Christus, 
pcrforatus  m  passione,  punget  in  secundo  sicut  acus,”  &c.,  &c. 


Ills  Originality. 


277 


the  literal  and  the  mystic,  and  he  founds  the  latter  exclusively 
upon  the  former.  No  mere  eclectic,  he  everywhere  exhibits 
a  vigorous  independence  and  originality  with  the  clear  feeling 
that  he  is  opening  fresh  paths.  He  does  not  hesitate  some¬ 
times  to  prefer  the  explanations  of  Kashi  and  the  Jews  to  those 
of  the  idolised  Latin  Fathers,  even  in  passages  which  had 
been  accepted  Messianically ;  and  sometimes  he  sets  aside 
both  Jewish  and  Christian  interpretations  in  favour  of  some 
view  of  his  own.1  While,  therefore,  he  wrote  in  a  tone  of 
extreme  modesty,  and  submitted  all  his  works  to  the  decision 
of  the  Church,2  he  did  more  than  any  other  writer  to  break 
down  the  tyranny  of  ecclesiastical  tradition,  and  to  overthrow 
the  blind  belief  in  the  bad  method  of  many  centuries.  The 
old  proverb  Si  Lyra  non  lyrasset,  Lutherus  non  saltasset  may 
only  express  a  popular  view  of  history;  but  Luther,  while 
blaming  his  dependence  on  Kashi,  both  made  great  use  of 
Lyra  and  expressed  for  him  the  utmost  admiration.3  He  can 
have  no  juster  eulogy  than  the  distich  of  his  epitaph — 

“  Littera  nempe  nimis  quae  quondam  obscura  jacebat, 

Omnes  per  partes  clara  labore  meo  est.”  4 

Although  the  folios  of  Lyra  almost  immediately  drove 
other  commentaries,  except  the  Glossa  ordinaria,  into 


1  See  his  note  on  Gen.  xlix.  11,  where  he  says,  “  Exponunt  de  Christi  pas- 
sione  sed  ista  expositio  videtur  mihi  magis  mystica  quam  literalis.”  He 
refuses  to  see  any  allusion  to  the  Trinity  in  Gen.  xviii.  1. 

2  He  modestly  says  that  he  has  only  written  Scholastics  et  in  modum  cxercitii , 
and  subjects  his  views  to  the  correction  sanctac  matris  ecclesiae  et  cujuslibet 
sapientis.  The  vigour  of  his  independence  is  well  shown  in  his  comment  on 
Ezek.  xl.-xlviii.  (on  which  see  Hengstenberg,  Christologie,  ii.  595  ;  Merx, 
Joel,  331-335).  He  examines  the  views  of  Kashi,  Jerome,  Gregory,  Richard, 
and  Hugo  of  St.  Victor,  and  differs  from  them  all  for  the  better. 

3  Luther  said,  ‘  ‘  Ego  Lyranum  ideo  amo  et  inter  optimos  pono  quod  ubique 
diligenter  retinet  et  persequitur  historiam,  quamquam  auctoritate  Patrum  se 
vinci  patitur  et  nonnunquam  eorum  exemplo  deflectit  ...  ad  ineptas  alle- 
gorias.”  Flacius  ( Catal .  xviii.  809)  speaks  of  him  no  less  highly.  In  Luther’s 
comment  on  Genesis  (as  Siegfried  has  proved)  Lyra  is  traceable  in  almost 
every  verse.  Luther  adds  little  to  him  except  polemical  and  dogmatic  bibli- 
cism.  R.  Simon,  iii.  432. 

4  On  Nicolas  of  Lyra  see  Fabric.  Bill.  Lot.  v.  114  sq. ;  Le  Long,  Bibl.  Sacr. 
iii.  357,  sq.  ;  Rosenmiiller,  Hist.  Int.  v.  280  ;  Flacius,  Catal.  test.  Verit.  xviii. ; 
Buddeus,  Isagoge,  1420,  sq.  ;  Meyer,  Gesch.  d.  SchrifterJcl.  i.  109-121  ; 
Diestel,  pp.  198-201  ;  Merx,  Joel ,  305-335  ;  Klausen,  Hermeneutik ,  p.  210  j 
Griitz,  Gesch.  d.  Juo. l.  vii.  513  &c. 


278 


Retrogression. 


oblivion,  lie  had  no  adequate  followers.1  The  converted  Jew, 
Solomon  Levita,  known  as  Paulus  of  Burgos  (t  1435), 
published  Adcliiiones  to  Nicolas  of  Lyra,  which  were  purely 
reactionary,2  and  deserved  the  Correctorium  corrupt  oris  Bur- 
gensis  of  Matthias  Boring.3  Paulus  repeats  the  old  secular 
misquotation  of  “  the  letter  killeth,”  and  makes  the  slavish 
and  sophistic  remark  that,  “  Since  God  is  the  author  of 
Scripture,  and  must  have  intended  the  literal  sense,  the 
Church  decision  always  must  be  the  literal  sense,  even  when 
it  seems  least  to  resemble  it.”  4  This  argument,  which  has 
been  repeated  by  a  leading  theologian  in  the  last  decade, 
makes  God  responsible  for  the  follies  and  ignorances  of  men. 
It  recklessly  confuses  predestination  with  foreknowledge,  and 
it  amounts  to  saying  that  if  a  passage  has  been  universally 
misunderstood,  the  misconception  or  perversion  of  it  must 
have  been  a  part  of  the  intended  meaning  ! 5  Thus  does 
theological  error  try  to  hide  itself  under  the  shield  of  omni¬ 
potence,  and  to  fulminate  its  ignorances  with  the  voice  of 
infallibility. 

After  the  death  of  Nicolas  of  Lyra  there  was  no  important 
addition  to  the  study  of  Scripture  till  the  dawn  of  the 
Reformation.  Wiclif,  indeed,  made  the  important  remark 
that  “  the  whole  error  in  the  knowledge  of  Scripture,  and  the 
source  of  its  debasement  and  falsification  by  incompetent 

1  See  Paul.  Burgens.  Prol.  Addit.  In  some  lines  by  Angelo  Rocca  ( Bibl . 
Theol.  Epitome,  1594)  he  says,  in  a  patronising  way, 

“At  brevis  et  facilis,  non  est  spernenda  tironi, 

Lyrensis  expositio.” 

Pope  in  the  Dunciad  (i.  153)  says  of  the  bookshelves  of  Colley  Cibber, — 

“  De  Lyra  there  a  dreadful  front  extends  ;  ” 

and  adds  in  his  note  that  De  Lyra’s  works  were  printed  in  five  vast  folio 
volumes  in  1472.  Pope  may  possibly  have  confused  him  with  Harpsfield  ;  if 
so  he  gives  a  wrong  date. 

2  He  repeatedly  returns  to  the  unnatural  glosses  which  Lyra’s  honesty  and 
good  sense  had  rejected. 

3  Doling  called  his  book  Replicae  defensivae.  See  Buddeus,  Isag.  p.  1433. 

4  “  Sensus  literalis  non  debet  dici  ille  qui  repugnat  ecclesiae  auctoritati.  ” 
Prol.  in  Additiones.  So  too  Gerson,  “Sensus  literalis judicandus  est  prout 
ecclesia  .  .  .  determinavit. ”  Propp.  de  sens.  lit.  3.' 

5  This  dangerous  notion  is  first  found  in  Augustine,  and  is  repeated  by 
Cocceius,  “  Impossibile  est  aliquid  fieri  in  mundo  de  quo  verba  Spiritus  Sancti 
usurpari  possunt,  ut  id  non  intuitus  sit  Spiritus  S.  .  .  et  non  voluerit 
legentem  ea  verba  ei  rei  accommodare .” 


279 


Other  Exegetes. 


persons,  was  the  ignorance  of  grammar  and  logic  ;  1  and  Hus 

by  the  sobriety  of  bis  writings  earned  the  praise  of  Luther, 
that  he  was  “skilful  and  weighty  in  the  treatment  of 
Scripture.”  The  value  of  Savonarola’s  comments  is  exclu¬ 
sively  practical.2  The  Propositions  de  sensu  literali  of  Gerson 
(t  1429)  lay  down  some  excellent  principles,  but  he  entirely 
nullifies  their  value  by  making  the  interpretation  of  Scripture 
depend  exclusively  on  the  authority  of  the  Church. 

His  comments  on  the  Canticles  and  the  Penitential 
Psalms,  apart  from  their  devotional  remarks,  are  of 
the  poorest  description.  Picus  of  Mirandola  (t  1494)  was 
chiefly  occupied  with  Platonism  and  Kabbalism.4  Tostatus 
(t  1454),  the  “  Stupor  mundi  qui  scibile  discutit  ovine, 
turned  to  but  poor  account  his  knowledge  of  Hebrew,  used 
Nicolas  of  Lyra  often  without  acknowledgment,  and  filled  his 
interminable  pages  with  irrelevant  disquisitions,  prolix  specu¬ 
lations,  and  valueless  questions.5  Turrecremata  (t  1468) 
blindly  followed  the  old  traditional  lines.  The  Jewish  convert, 
Jacob  Perez  of  Valentia  (t  1492),  mixed  them  up  with  the 
poorest  lees  of  Pabbinism.6  John  Wessel  Lux  Mundi  who 


1  Trialoq  i.  8.  On  liis  views  see  Vaughan,  ii.  315.  W  iclif  is  allegorical 
and  dialectical  in  bis  own  methods,  but  be  said  that  "  all  things  necessary  in 
Scripture  are  contained  in  its  proper  literal  and  histone  sense. 

2  Savonarola’s  sermons  are  full  of  the  fourfold  sense  (see  Lilian,  i.  114, 

E.  T.). 

3  See  Propp.  iii.  vi.  vii.  Opp.  1,  3,  ed  Du  Tin.  . 

4  See  Pic.  Mirand.  Opp.  p.  71,  and  Cudworth,  Intellect.  Syst.  oOl,  q.  , 

Arohansrelus,  ATlis  Kctbbal.  Scxiptoves,  15S7.  .  ~  •  i 

5  Such  as,  Was  Adam  wiser  than  Solomon  1  Did  he  name  the  fish  wine  i 

could  not  be  brought  to  him  ?  If  God  ceased  to  create  after  the  six  days,  how- 
come  creatures  to  be  formed  out  of  putrefaction  ?  &c.  In  the  New  Testament, 
Was  it  fit  that  the  Virgin  should  be  married  ?  Why  did  not  Joseph  ask  her, 
quomodo  conceperit  ?  Quid  faciebant  parentes  videntes  earn  praegnantem  .  . 

On  Matt.  iii.  25,  Quomodo  movebatur  ista  coluvibctj  .  .  .  Si  tuit  Aeia 
columba  potuit  moveri  multipliciter.  Uno  modo  a  yento,  &c.,  &c. * .  ^  tm 
folios  were  devoted  to  St.  Matthew'  and  one  to  the  fifth  chapter  alone  .  _  His  woi  m 
occupied  twenty-seven  massive  folios.  The  value  of  his  verbal  disquisitions 
on  the  New  Testament  may  be  estimated  by  the  fact  that  he  argues  from  t  ie 
Vulgate,  lienee  his  glaring  errors  about  the  word  TrapaZe^yariaai  and  pr\pa 

^Not'  content  with  the  seven  rules  of  Tichonius  he  adds  three  more  of  the 
same  kind  In  Ps.  xxii.  12  he  makes  the  “garments  the  letter  and  the 
mystic  sense  of  the  Old  Testament.  He  makes  the  four-cornered  Psaltery  a 
type  of  the  four  Evangelists  ;  the  ten  strings  are  the  ten  mysteries,  lhe  tn- 
aimular  harp  indicates  the  three  virtues,  and  tne  three  marksofholiness (vmo, 
Uniat io,  fruitio).  The  timbrel,  which  is  beaten,  is  a  type  of  Christ  s  su.lenngs. 


280 


Fall  of  Scholasticism. 

died  in  1489,  was,  indeed,  an  excellent  expounder,  and  was 
warmly  appreciated  by  Luther ;  but  in  this  respect  he  stands 
almost  alone.1  In  the  Mammothrectus,  a  book  which  Erasmus 
says  made  him  nearly  die  with  laughing,  we  reach  the  lowest 
depths  of  imbecility  ;  but  it  must  simply  be  regarded  as  an 
illustration  of  the  profound  ignorance  of  the  clergy  in  the 
age  in  which  he  lived.2  During  the  whole  of  this  epoch  the 
Greek  Church  produced  Catenae,  but  little  else. 

It  does  not  fall  under  my  subject  to  trace  the  history  of 
Scholasticism  itself.  Its  ruin  was  due  partly  to  its  own  ex¬ 
cesses  and  divisions,  partly  to  the  general  awakenment  of  the 
human  mind.3  With  Duns  Scotus  (*f*  1308)  begins  the  decay 
which  ended  in  dissolution.  His  constant  phrase  “  it  cannot 
be  proved  that”  led  to  scepticism.  His  purely  negative 
criticism,  and  his  method  of  quodlibets — the.  statement  of  argu¬ 
ments  pro  and  contra  without  any  mediation — gradually  dis¬ 
solved  the  union  between  faith  and  science  which  Anselm  had 
endeavoured  to  establish.  Hence  Haureau  calls  his  system 
“  Spinozism  before  Spinoza.”  He  also,  as  well  as  Raymond 
Lulli  (j-  1315),  helped  to  open  men’s  eyes  to  the  fact  that 
the  whole  school  system  dealt  far  more  with  words  than  with 
things.  What  Wetstein  calls  “  the  tyrannous  and  exclusive 
dominance  of  that  methodic,  dry,  dead,  wooden,  strawy,  arti¬ 
ficial  theology  which  was  a  mixture  of  philosophy,  technicality, 
and  dialectics,”  was  rendered  ipso  facto  impossible,  when,  as 
Erasmus  tells  us,  a  “  theologian  ”  could  boast  “  that  it  would 
take  more  than  nine  years  to  understand  what  Duns  Scotus 
wrote  as  a  mere  preface  to  the  Sentences ;  and  that  unless  a 
man  had  all  the  metaphysical  system  of  Scotus  in  his  head, 

The  first  Psalm  refutes  the  Stoics,  Peripatetics,  Avicenna,  Algazel,  &c.  In 
the  tlmd  we  see  Christ  s  sufferings  ;  in  the  fourth  His  miracles  ;  in  the  fifth 
the  Pharisees  ;  in  the  sixth  the  Eucharist,  &c.  See  Fabr.  Bill.  Lett.  iv.  102  ; 
Meyer,  i.  322  (who  quotes  some  deplorable  specimens).  The  “sensus  mere 
literal  is  is  to  him  always  “  inutilis.” 

1  Ullmann,  Reformers  before  the  Reformation.  For  the  views  of  Anton 

2'  ' lr1SSa  *  can  si.mP1y  refer  to  Meyer,  i.  332-339. 

Nwper  cum  in  hunc  codicem  incidissem,  minimum  aibfuit  quin  risu 
dissihrcm.  Erasm.  Colloq.  561.  The  author  of  the  book  was  Joannes 
Maicliesmus.  dor  a  kindly  remark  about  him  see  Hallam,  Lit.  of  Europe. 

1.  286 n.  See  too  Sixtus  Senensis,  p.  273. 

3  See  Hergenrdther,  i.  953. 


281 


William  of  Occam. 

* 

lie  could  not  understand  one  sentence  of  his  writings.”  Men 
began  to  perceive  that  years  of  study  of  these  subtle  techni¬ 
calities  only  made  them  masters  of  a  cumbrous  and  useless 
terminology,  and  took  them  no  nearer  to  the  comprehension 
of  the  incircumscriptibilitates,  as  Scotus  barbarously  called 
them,  which  they  were  supposed  to  elucidate. 

The  system  of  the  Schools  received  a  yet  deadlier  blow 
when  William  of  Occam  (t  1347)  became  the  subtle  and 
clear-minded  champion  of  nominalism.  The  Platonic  doc¬ 
trine  of  ideas— the  belief  in  Universal ia  ante  re m— had  been 
the  band  of  union  between  theology  and  philosophy.  The 
Church  had  adopted  the  rule  Invisibilia  non  decipiunt, 
and  she  had  maintained  that  apart  from  Realism  there 
could  be  no  belief  in  the  Trinity  or  in  Transubstantiation. 
Thus  Realism  was  favourable  to  dogma,  for  it  could  reason 
deductively  from  truths  assumed  to  be  certainly  known. 
The  earlier  Nominalists  had  been  crushed  by  accusations 
of  heresy.  Roscelin  had  been  charged  with  Tritheism  ; 
Abelard  with  Sabellianism.  Occam  by  arguing  that  uni¬ 
versal  were  names,  words,  j flatus  vocis,  which  had  their 
exclusive  birth  in  the  human  reason,"  snapped  the  link 
between  theology  and  philosophy.  His  two  axioms,  Entia 
non  sunt  multiplicanda  praetor  necessitatem  and  Frustra  fit 
per  plura  quod  fieri  potest  per  pauciora,  cut  away  the  ground 
under  many  traditional  assumptions.3  Unintentionally  per¬ 
haps,  but  surely,  Occam  weakened  the  hold  of  the  entire 
tradi  tional  system  of  Christianity  by  resting  it  on  the  authority 
of  the  Church  alone,  and  by  the  absurdities,  contradictions,  and 
frivolities  with  which  he  unwisely  and  irreverently  connected 
the  Christian  dogmas  when  regarded  by  themselves.4  No  less 
surely  did  he  weaken  the  pride  of  sacerdotal  tyranny,  when 
he  addressed  to  the  Emperor  Lewis  of  Bavaria  the  famous 


1  See  Raureau,  351-353.  _  .  ,  .  _ 

2  Universalia  post  rem.  See  Hampden,  Lampt  Lect.y.  7  .  ff  , 

3  “Le  caractfere  propre  du  nominalisme  c  est  la  simplicity  —Raureau. 
The  name  Doctor  Invincibilis  was  given  liim  by  1  ope  John  xxn. 

4  See  Landerer,  s.v.  Scholasticism,  in  Herzogs  Encykl.  and  Occam  una 
Luther  (Tluolog.  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1839).  Those  extravagances  chiefly  occur  in 
Occam’s  Quodlibeta  and  Cenlilogium. 


282 


Platonic  Studies. 


words  “  Tu  me  defende  gladio,  ego  te  defendam  calamo  ;  ” 1  and 
when  in  his  JSpistola  Defensoria  he  became ’the  earliest 
defender  of  the  Liberty  of  the  Press.2  The  nominalist 
Gabriel  Biel  (‘f’  1495)  was  the  last  of  the  Schoolmen. 

Nominalism  rejects  the  ideas  of  Plato,  yet  the  reintroduc¬ 
tion  of  Platonic  studies  in  the  fifteenth  century  had  their 
share  also  in  the  downfall  of  Scholasticism.3  It  led  the  wav 

%J 

to  a  freer  and  more  spiritual  Christianity.  The  study  of  Plato 
was  not  monopolised  by  the  semi-pagan  humanists.  St. 
Thomas  Aquinas  had  spoken  of  Augustine  as  “  doctrinis 
Platonicorum  imbutus  4  Lorenzo  de  Medici  went  so  far  as 
to  say,  that  “  without  Plato  a  man  could  not  well  be  a  good 
citizen  or  skilled  in  Christian  doctrine.” 5  The  Fathers  had 
been  Platonists.6  “Academia  Platonis  JEcclesiae  velut  vesti- 
bulum,”  says  Baronius.  Ficino,  the  translator  of  Plato,  also 
lectured  on  St.  Paul.  Colet,  whose  name  stands  so  deservedly 
high  among  English  theologians,  studied  Plato  as  well  as 
Plotinus  and  Dionysius.  The  Church  had  long  been  under 
the  sway  of  Aristotle,  and  had  much  to  learn  from  Plato’s 
analytic  method  of  searching  for  truth  instead  of  starting 
from  synthetic  maxims.  <!  The  most  zealous  defenders  of 
Christianity,”  says  Van  Heusden,7  “  have  esteemed  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  Plato  a  prelude  to  the  truest  Christianity.”  Christian 
students  thought  that  they  found  Platonic  idealism  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.8  The  works  of  Plato  had  become 
known  to  Europe  in  the  Bevival  of  Letters,  and  it  has  been 
said  that  the  Christian  Mirandola  was  as  eager  in  the  cause  of 
reconciling  Plato  with  Aristotle,  as  the  anti-Christian  Porphyry 

1  In  1328. 

Haureau,  ii.  420.  Marsilio  of  Padua  is  said  to  have  learnt  from  Occam 
the  fine  conceptions  of  liberty  which  appear  in  his  Defensor  Paris. 

3  All  that  was  known  of  Plato  by  mediaeval  scholars  was  derived  from  a 
translation  by  Chalcidius  of  part  of  the  Timacus,  references  in  St.  Augustine 
and  the  De  clogmate  Platonis  of  Apuleius.  lleberweg,  i.  367. 

4  Summ.  i.  qu.  84,  art.  5. 

5  Valorius,  Laurentii  Medici  Vita,  p.  18. 

6  See  Aug.  De  Civ.  Dei,  viii.  12  ;  c.  Academ.  iii.  19,  “In  multis  quae  ad 
philosophiam  pertinent  Augustinus  utitur  opinionibus  Platonis.”  Thom  A  a 
Summ.  i.  qu.  77,  art.  5. 

7  Charactcrismi,  p.  189. 

8  Pven  in  its  most  Aristotelian  epoch  the  Church  was  Realist.  Thomas 
Aqum.  Surnma  Ima.  qu.  xv.  1  ;  xliv.  3. 


Views  of  Inspiration. 


283 


had  been  twelve  centuries  before.  This  was  one  object  of 
the  nine  hundred  theses  with  which,  at  the  age  of  twenty- 
four,  he  challenged  the  Christian  world  in  Rome.  Platonism 
and  Nominalism  were  opposite  influences,  but  each  of  them 
acted  as  a  solvent  on  the  hard  shell  of  the  Scholastic  system 
Their  work  was  powerfully  aided  by  the  development  of 
Commerce,  the  growth  of  the  Universities,2  the  spread  of  in¬ 
ductive  philosophy,  the  Revival  of  Letters,  the  acquaintance 
with  the  great  mediaeval  Jewish  commentators,  the  increasing 
study  of  Hebrew  and  other  languages,  and  the  immorality 
and  ignorance  of  the  monks  and  clergy  which  tended  to  bring 
their  extravagant  pretensions  into  absolute  contempt. 

The  defects  of  scholastic  exegesis  were  due  to  many  causes. 

1  One  of  these,  and  the  source  of  all  the  rest,  was  a  vague, 
superstitious,  unproved,  and  purely  traditional  conception  of 
inspiration  It  was  confused  with  verbal  dictation,  and  the 
Bible  was  turned  into  an  amulet  or  fetish  with  which  the 
hierarchy,  which  arrogantly  usurped  the  name  of  “  the 
Church,”  could  do  as  they  liked.  The  result  was  “  to  nul  1  y 
the  use  of  Scripture  as  a  record  of  the  divine  dealings  with 
the  successive  generations  of  mankind.  The  voice  of  God 
was  no  longer  heard  as  it  spoke  at  sundry  times  and  m  divers 
manners  to  holy  men  of  old,  but  simply  as  uttering  the  hal¬ 
lowed  symbols  of  an  oracular  wisdom.  The  whole  of  Scripture 
was  treated  as  one  contemporaneous  production  of  which  the 
several  parts  might  be  expounded  without  reference  to  the 
circumstances  in  which  each  was  delivered.’’  And  thus  the 
Bible  was  degraded  to  the  level  of  the  Koran,  and  the 
piety  of  the  Schoolmen  became  a  superstition,  transub¬ 
stantiating  the  Word  of  God  into  the  verbal  elements  by 
which  it  was  signified.” 3  A  false  and  extravagant  system  ot 

1  See  Mosheira,  Dc  turbatd  per  recmliores  Platmicos  Eccl.  1677  ;  B™cker, 
,,  1  di  To  iris  •  Dplacluze  Florence  et  Ses  Vicissitudes ,  1837. 
“  Srowl  of  the  iuWer'IS’see  Cardinal  Hergenrother,  K.  0  946- 
°,‘  attributes  the  fall  of  Scholasticism  to  an  “  hochgetnebene  Socht  nach 
Srdtzfmdh'keiten,  innere  Zerwiirfnisse,  und  das  Ueberw,egen  der  humamstochen 
Siudien. See  too  Ueberweg,  of  d 

the  fo4”dd"cretirof  Isidorl  were  also  treated  as  more  or  less  “inspired." 


284 


Downfall  of  Scholasticism. 

interpretation  has  always  been  the  Nemesis  of  a  false  and  ex¬ 
travagant  theory  of  supernatural  infallibility.  Nothing  but 
perversion  could  come  from  this  system  of  treating  the  Bible 
as  a  series  of  propositions  all  on  the  same  level,  each  absolute 
in  itself,  and  warranting  every  inference  which  could  be 
logically  deduced  from  the  phraseology. 

2.  The  whole  system  of  Scholasticism  necessarily  fell  with 
the  Renaissance  and  the  Reformation,  because  it  had  been 
essentially  fettered,  papal,  sacerdotal,  and  monkish.1  When 
Constantinople  had  been  taken  by  the  Turks  in  1453,  and 
the  intellect  of  Europe  once  more  came  into  close  contact 
with  the  glorious  literature  of  antiquity;  when  the  invention 
of  printing  led  to  a  tenfold  diffusion  of  knowledge ;  when  the 
vernacular  languages  were  used  in  every  branch  of  general 
education ;  when  the  laity  discovered  that  the  Church  had 
no  longer  the  pretension  to  any  monopoly  of  knowledge — 
Scholasticism  was  doomed.  It  was  not  only  Philosophic^ 
ancilla  Theologiae ,  but  Philosophia  in  servitutem  theologiae 
papeae  redcccta .2  It  was  the  vassalage  of  philosophy  which 
was  forbidden  to  stir  beyond  impassable  limits  fixed  by  the 
dogmas  of  the  Church.3  If  alike  the  humanists  and  the 
Reformers  on  the  one  hand  men  like  Faber  Stapulensis, 
Sadoletus,  Hermolaus  Barbaras,  Laurentius  Valla,  Bacon, 
Descartes,  and  the  Encyclopaedists,  on  the  other  Erasmus 
and  Luther — have  spoken  of  the  whole  system  with  the 
bitterest  disdain,  it  must  be  remembered  that  for  more 
than  four  centuries  it  exercised  a  colossal  tyranny,  and 
often  used  that  tyranny  on  behalf  of  the  Papal  usurpations, 
the  monastic,  system,  and  the  obscurantist  theories  which 
became  objects  of  deadly  antipathy  to  many  minds. 

3.  A  third  cause  of  the  failure  of  Scholasticism  was  the  lack 
of  due  equipment  in  the  writers. 

Peter  Damian  said  that  human  intellect  was  not  to  claim  mastership  “sed 
velut  ancilla  dominae  quodam  famulatus  obsequio  subservire.  ”  The  Council  of 
Constance  forbade  laymen  to  teach  in  public,  “sed  aurem  iis  qui  docendi 
gratiam  acceperint  aperire  ”  {Can.  64). 

Heumann,  1  rol.  to  Tribbechovius,  De  doctr.  Schol.  et  Corrupta  per  eos  die 
hum.  rerum  Scientia,  1665. 

3  Ueberweg,  Hist.  Phil.  i.  66. 


285 


Lack  of  Equipment. 

For  instance  the  historic  feeling  and  the  critical  faculty  are 
entirely  in  abeyance  in  their  writings.  The  narratives  of 
the  Old  Testament  are  rich  with  human  experiences,  and 
full  of  interest,  warning,  and  instruction.  Those  of  the  New 
Testament  are  not  only  infinitely  pathetic,  but  contain  the 
very  heart  of  God’s  revelation  of  Himself  m  the  life  of  men. 
Yet  for  all  that  is  real  and  deep  in  these  narratives,  literally 
understood,  the  claustral  narrowness  of  mediaeval  exegesis 
had  no  feeling  whatever.1  Ignorant  for  the  most  part  of 
classical  literature,  and  therefore  destitute  of  a  training 
which  was  invaluable  to  the  greatest  of  the  Fathers,  the 
Schoolmen  were  also  cut  off  from  a  true  knowledge  of  life  b) 
the  narrowing  walls  and  soul-dwarfing  externalism  of  their 
monastic  routine.  For  us  the  history  of  David  thrills  with 
life,  beauty,  and  divine  attractiveness ;  for  the  Schoolmen 
David  became  for  the  most  part  a  dull  and  misty  abstraction, 
and  his  Psalms  cumbrous  and  obscure  enigmas.  ‘£  Here,” 
says  Albertus,  writing  on  the  forty-first  Psalm,  “the  whole 
Church  is  called  David,  which  groaning  desires  to  reach  its 
end.”  In  the  narrative  of  the  Transfiguration,  “  Jesus,  he 
says,  “signifies  the  preaching  of  the  gospel;”  “Peter,  one 
who*  learns;”  “John,  one  in  whom  is  the  grace  of  God;” 
“  James,  a  supplanter.”  Jesus  took  them  up  the  mountain 
“  after  six  days  ”  because  the  world  was  made  in  six  days,  or, 
as  St.  Luke  says,  “  after  eight  days,”  because  the  Resurrection 
was  on  the  eighth  day.2  “  They  therefore  who  have  ascended 
above  the  world  can  be  led  by  the  words  of  the  Gospel  into 
the  mountains  of  sublime  intelligence”  and  so  forth.  If 
we  turn  to  the  Catena  Aurea  of  St.  Thomas  Aquinas,  we  find 
him  quoting  Rabanus  Maurus,  who  explains  the  six  days  a> 
a  reference  to  the  six  ages  before  the  Resurrection ;  and 


i  Even  “the  Universal  Doctor,”  Albertus  Magnus,  numbers  the  Pytha¬ 
goreans  among  the  Stoics,  calls  Socrates  a  Macedonian  and  says -that 
Empedocles  and  Anaxagoras  were  Italians.  See  Elster,  De  Med.  Aeu  Theol. 

*7 The' ’ helplessness  with  which  the  reader  is  left  to  choose  between  “six 
days”  (Matt  xvii.  1)  and  “eight  days”  (Luke  ix.  28),  without  a  glimpse  of 
direction  as  to  which  period  was  meant,  is  very  characteristic,  d  here  is  not 
an  attempt  to  give  the  very  obvious  solution  of  the  apparent  discrepancy. 


286 


Neglect  of  Philology. 

Origen,  who  refers  them  to  the  six  days  of  creation ;  and  he 
thinks  that  the  Three  Apostles  remind  us  of  Shem,  Ham, 
and  Japheth,  or  (as  Hilary  says)  of  the  Holy  Trinity  !  With 
the  historic  sense  thus  atrophied  it  does  not  surprise  us  to 
find  that  the  critical  faculty  is  also  dead ;  that  though  the 
Scriptures  are  declared  to  be  written  “by  the  Triune  God,” 
the  Apocrypha  and  the  Fathers  are  put  very  nearly  on  a  level 
with  them ;  that  the  Celestial  Hierarchy  could  be  confidently 
attributed  to  St.  Paul’s  Athenian  convert ;  and  that  even 
Roger  Bacon  supposes  that  the  Church  did  not  admit  the 
Book  of  Enoch  and  the  Testament  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs 
into  the  Canon  only  “  because  of  their  too  great  antiquity.”1 

4.  The  neglect  of  Philology  by  the  Schoolmen  was  equally 
fatal.  Only  one  or  two  of  them  possessed  even  a  smattering 
of  Hebrew,  and  the  vast  majority  of  them  wrere  no  less 
ignorant  of  Greek.2  They  philosophised  and  theologised 
over  what  they  assumed  to  be  the  supernatural  accuracy 
of  largely  vitiated  manuscripts  of  a  very  imperfect  transla¬ 
tion  ;  and  often  with  no  better  aid  than  heterogeneous  glosses 
from  the  Fathers,  and  those  not  unfrequently  from  poor 
versions  and  spurious  writings.  And  as  they  “rack  the  text 
and  so  to  speak  drag  it  along  by  the  hair,”  they  constantly 
rely  on  the  most  grotesque  etymologies.3  If,  as  Luther  said, 

1  Opus  Majus,  ii.  8.  He  said  that  they  contained  the  articles  of  faith 
“  longe  expressius  quam  in  canons.”  Roger  Bacon  had  hinted  at  the  relative 
freedom  of  non-biblical  branches  of  knowledge,  but  his  view  was  not  accepted. 
Hugo  said  that  the  Bible  contains  “totius  universi  continentiam  ”  and  it  was 
used  to  settle  all  questions  alike. 

2  Even  Thomas  Aquinas,  if  he  knew  some  Greek,  “has  in  several  instances 
quite  missed  the  sense  of  the  Greek.” — Newman. 

3  See  the  Calendarium  Etymologicum  (Hilarius  =  altus  ares.  Ignatius  = 
ignem  patius,  &c.)  Brucker,  iii.  854.  Roger  Bacon  derives  napaaicevr)  from 
parari  cocnam.  Hervaeus  Dolensis  derives  epistola  from  epi  and  stola,  and 
says  that  they  were  so  called  because  they  were  sent  over  and  above  the 
Gospels.  Hugo  of  St.  Victor  derives  a-yios  from  a  and  777.  Thomas 
Aquinas,  terra — quia  teritur  pedibus  ;  tenebras — quasi  tenens  umbram  ;  abyssus 
from  a  and  byssus,  or  a  and  basis.  Albertus  derives  Endymion  from  en  and 
dymion,  “  intellect  ;  ”  Duran dus  Alleluia  from  Alle  salvum,  leu,  me,  and  ja, 
fac  ;  Hervaeus  Dolensis  says  that  Timotheus  means  “  beneficial  ”  and  that  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  written  to  those  who  had  crossed  over  from  worldli¬ 
ness.  See  Tribbeehovius  Be  Doctoribus  Scholasticis  (1719),  pp.  212  sqq.,  or  a 
curious  later  specimen,  see  Colet’s  Letters  to  Ladulphus  (ed.  Lupton),  p.  81. 
A  very  wonderful  list  might  be  made  of  the  inferences  drawn  from  absurd 
etymologies  and  sheer  mistakes.  In  the  Glossa  Ordinaria  Amram  (=  pater 
excehus )  is  Christ  ;  Jochebed  (=  Dei  Gratia)  is  the  Church  :  from  their  union 


Parallel  Passages. 


287 


“the  science  of  theology  is  nothing  else  than  grammar 
applied  to  the  words  of  the  Holy  Spirit,”  the  Schoolmen  were 
indeed  ill-prepared.  In  Heb.  ii.  9  Thomas  Aquinas,  following 
Primasius,  mistakes  gratia  Dei  (%dpm  ©eoO)  for  a  nomina¬ 
tive  and  a  title  of  Christ.  He  says  that  the  name  Paul 
cannot  be  of  Hebrew  origin  because  the  Hebrew  does  not 
possess  the  letter  P,  but  it  may  he  from  a  word  beginning 
with  a  letter  like  P,  in  which  case  it  means  “ wonderful”  or 
“  elect ;  ”  if  it  be  a  Greek  word  it  means  “  quiet ;  ”  if  Latin, 
it  means  “  small ;  ”  and  he  proceeds  at  great  length  to  show 
from  Scripture  how  each  of  these  three  meanings  suits  St. 
Paul !  Gregory  the  Great  said  that  it  was  of  no  consequence 
to  know  who  wrote  any  particular  book  of  Scripture,  because 
we  do  not  enquire  with  what  pen  a  great  writer  wrote,  and 
the  sacred  writers  are  only  pens  of  the  Triune  God. 

5.  It  naturally  resulted  from  these  defects  that  much 
of  the  exegesis  of  even  the  greatest  Schoolmen  consisted  in 
an  arbitrary  juxtaposition  of  texts,  a  mere  abuse  of  imaginary 
verbal  resemblances.  The  method  of  Thomas  Aquinas 
seems  to  have  been  to  explain  a  passage  by  adducing  all  the 
other  places  where  %u  the  Latin  version  the  same  prominent 
word  occurs.  Thus,  on  Isaiah  lx.  1,  he  chooses  the  texts  in 
which  “light”  occurs;  on  Isaiah  xliv.  3,  he  draws  out  a 
scheme  of  three  ways  in  which  “  the  Spirit  *  is  given  severally 
to  beginners,  to  proficients,  and  to  the  perfect.  W  hen  wash¬ 
ing  ”  is  spoken  of,  he  collects  the  texts,  and  says  that  w  e  ar e 
washed  by  water  of  baptism  (Acts  xxii.  16)  ;  by  tears  of  con¬ 
trition  (Luke  vii.  38) ;  by  the  wine  of  Divine  love  (Gen.  xlix. 
11) ;  by  the  milk  of  the  Divine  Word  (Cant.  v.  12)  ;  with 
the  blood  of  the  Passion  (1  Cor.  vi.  11);  and  with  a  view 
to  our  correction  (John  xiii.  5).  This  may  be  harmless  when 
it  is  simply  artificial,  but  it  is  sometimes  purely  misleading, 
as  in  the  note  of  Albertus  Magnus  on  Psalm  lxix.  3,  where 
he  tries  to  show  that  the  meaning  of  the  word  “  substance  ”  is 
fourfold— a  matter  which  has  nothing  to  do  with  Ins  text— 

comes  Moses  (!)  who  is  the  spiritual  law  ;  and  Aaron  the  clergy.  For  other 
etymologies  see  Finder,  <S c/iolcusticci  1  itcoloc/ici,  p.  <j4. 


288 


False  Parallels. 


from  tiie  uses  of  the  word  substantia  in  the  Vulgate.1  Here, 
again,  is  the  comment  of  St.  Thomas  Aquinas  on  Isaiah  xi.  1, 
“  There  shall  come  forth  a  rod  out  of  the  stem  of  Jesse.’*  The 
Blessed  "Virgin,  he  says,  is  “a  rod.”  (1)  As  consoling  in  tribu¬ 
lation,  which  he  illustrates  by  the  rocl  of  Moses  dividing  the 
Bed  Sea.  (2)  As  fructifying ,  because  Aaron’s  rod  budded. 
(3)  As  satiating ,  because  the  rod  of  Moses  drew  water  from 
the  rock.  (4)  As  scourging ,  because  a  rod  was  to  smite  the 
corners  of  Moab.  (5)  As  watching ,  because  in  Jer.  1.  11,  we 
read  in  the  Vulgate  Virgam  vigilantcm  ego  video.  Unhappily, 
however,  for  this  curious  piece  of  perverted  exegesis,  the 
word  for  “rod,”  in  Isaiah  xi.  1,  is  choter  ppn) ;  in  Numbers 
xvii.  8,  xx.  11,  is  mattch  (nt3£>) ;  and  in  Jer.  i.  11,  is  maggccl 
and  means  “  an  early  or  wakeful  tree  ”  (A. V.  “  rod  of 
an  almond  tree,”  LXX.  fdarcTrjptav  Kapv'ivrjv).  The  parallel 
passages  are  therefore  no  parallels  at  all,  and  the  only 
light  thrown  on  the  passage,  apart  from  its  arbitrary  appli¬ 
cation  to  the  Virgin,  is  a  false  and  fantastic  light.  This 
concordance-like  juxtaposition  of  the  purely  semblable  identi¬ 
ties  of  expression  furnished  by  a  translator  has  misled  exegetes 
since  the  days  of  Hillel,  who  invented  it.  If  it  were  justi¬ 
fiable,  the  Manichees  had  a  perfect  right  to  explain  “  In  sole 
posuit  tabernaculum  suum  ”  (Psalm  xix.  4)  to  mean  that 
Christ  had  ascended  incorporeally  to  the  Father,  leaving  His 
tabernacle,  i.e.  His  body,  in  the  sun.  The  method  it  appears 
was  perfectly  orthodox,  though  the  inference  was  altogether 
heretical. 

6.  Another  radical  defect  of  scholastic  commentaries  is  the 
abuse  of  the  dialectic  method,  which  led  too  readily  to 
sophistry  and  logomachy,  and  even  to  the  mendacium  officiosum 
of  pledged  controversialists.2 

The  object  of  the  Schoolmen  is  often  far  less  to  explain 
the  meaning  of  a  passage  than  to  work  it  up  dialectically, 

f  1.  Earthly  goods  (Gen.  xiii.  6).  2.  Stability  of  life.  3.  Virtue  (Prov. 

xm’  U  sua  est  substantia  cui  non  est  peecatum  in  conscientia).  4.  All 
nature. 

a  1  hom.  Aquin.  Summ.  IE  2  ;  ex.  2  and  4.  Petavius admits  o-ocpiariKT]  and 
tpuTTiKT]  to  defeat  heresy  {Dogmata,  Frol.  4,  p.  14). 


Dialectics. 


289 


under  the  categories  of  Aristotle,  and  to  arrange  in  the 
systematic  form  of  endless  subdivisions  every  possible  lesson, 
which  they  think  can  be  extorted  from  it.1  They  thought 
with  Berengar  that  “  God  is  a  logician/’ 2  They  treated  theo¬ 
logy  geometrically,  after  the  fashion  of  a  proposition  of  Euclid. 
Spinning  out  of  their  own  subjectivity  by  the  aid  of  objections, 
solutions,  definitions,  conclusions,  corollaries,  propositions, 
proofs,  replies,  reasons,  refutations,  exceptions,  and  distinc¬ 
tions,3  they  weave,  as  Bacon  said,  interminable  webs,  “  mar¬ 
vellous  for  the  tenacity  of  the  thread  and  workmanship,  but 
for  any  useful  purpose  trivial  and  inane.”  4  “  In  divine 

things,”  says  Ludovicus  Vives,  “they  divide,  singularise,  parti¬ 
cularise,  completely,  incompletely,  as  though  they  were 
dealing  with  an  apple.” 5  Hence  follows  that  coacervatio ,  as 
Sixtus  Senensis  calls  it,  which  is  so  inexpressibly  wearisome. 
A  perfectly  empty  schematism  led  to  a  boundless  prolixity. 
Langenstein  in  four  large  folios  had  only  got  to  the  fourth 
chapter  of  Genesis,  and  more  real  elucidation  of  the  meaning 
could  probably  be  given  in  four  lines.  Hasselbach  wrote 
twenty-four  books  on  the  first  chapter  of  Isaiah,6  and  an 
indefinitely  truer  conception  of  its  meaning  could  be  fur¬ 
nished  in  two  pages.  It  took  mankind  several  centuries  to 
arrive  at  the  conviction  that  “  it  had  not  pleased  God  to 

1  As  early  even  as  Lanfranc,  the  dogmatics  of  the  day  are  set  forth  in  the 
scholastic  manner,  with  syllogisms  and  dialectic  examination  of  proofs  and 
counterproofs.  “They  did  not  define  doctrine,”  says  JBaur,  “they  refined 
upon  it.”  Versohnungslehre,  p.  147. 

2  Ampere,  Hist.  Lit.  de  France,  iii.  333. 

3  Erasm.  Encom.  Mor.  p.  193  (ed.  1696). 

4  Bacon,  Le  Augm.  Scient.  i.  16.  “This  degenerate  kind  of  learning  was 
chiefly  prevalent  among  the  Schoolmen,  who,  having  sharp  wits,  abundant 
leisure,  small  variety  of  reading,  and  knowing  little  history,  whether  of 
nature  or  time,  spun  laborious  webs  of  learning  which  are  extant  in  their 
books.” 

5  Lud.  Yives,  De  Corrupt.  Art.  I.;  ap.  Tribbechovius,  Dc  Doctor.  Sckol.  p.  24 
Some  accuse  Abelard  (Trithemius,  Cat.  S.  E.  p.  97),  others  Peter  Lombard 
(Aventinus  Annal.  vi.  Baur,  Dogmengesch.  p.  159),  some  Duns  Scotus 
(Sent.  iii.  dtit.  24,  qu.  1.  See  Brucker,  ii.  875),  and  some  Albertus  (see 
Vaughan,  Life  of  St.  Thomas,  i.  248)  of  thus  “introducing  Aristotle  into 
Christianity.” 

6  The  phantom  of  a  “multiple  sense”  led  them  yet  deeper  into  these 
quagmires  of  prolixity.  Bede  boasts  that  a  single  line  of  Scripture  is  so 
fecund  that  it  “  will  fill  many  pages  with  the  sweetness  of  its  spiritual 
meaning.” 

U 


290 


Barbarous  Terminology. 


reveal  His  salvation  in  dialectics/’  and  that  “  dialectics  are 
inefficacious  if  unsupported  by  other  knowledge/’ 1  Duns 
Scotus  had  said  that  the  certitude  of  the  Scriptures  is  a 
certitude  not  of  reason  but  of  authority;  that  they  give  no 
demonstrations  and  do  not  argue  definitive  et  devise .2  Scho¬ 
lasticism  made  the  vain  attempt  to  remedy  the  supposed 
deficiency,  and  by  trying  to  combine  word-splitting  and 
stringent  dogmatism  became  at  once  servile  and  tyrannical.3 

7.  A  fatal  defect  was  the  barbarous  nature  of  their  lan¬ 
guage.  “  Person  ”  is  defined  in  a  mass  of  verbiage  which 
could  not  possibly  convey  a  definite  meaning  to  the  mind  of 
a  single  learner.  Erasmus  said  that  if  Jerome  or  Augustine 
could  have  come  to  life  again  they  would  have  been  derided 
for  their  ignorance,  because  they  could  not  have  understood 
such  portentous  words  as  “instances,  relations,  ampliations, 
restrictions,  formalities,  haecceities,  and  quiddities.”  Every¬ 
thing  was  considered  alien  from  theologic  erudition  which 
was  not  intertwisted  with  thorny  syllogisms,  and  if  St.  Paul 
was  quoted  to  the  later  Schoolmen  they  imagined  themselves 
removed  to  another  world.4 5  That  special  theological  mystery 
the  circuminsessio ,  and  communicatio  idiomatum ,  in  other 
words,  the  relation  to  each  other  of  the  two  Natures  in  the 
Person  of  Christ,  is  defined  as  “  Subsistentis  in  subsistence 
realiter  distincto  mutua  praesentialitis  assistentia  in  eadem 
essentia .”  The  Hypostatic  union  is  “  Relatio  clisquiparentiae 
realis  quidem  in  uno  extreme  cui  in  altero  nulla  realis  relatio 
responded’ 5  These  are  but  slight  specimens  of  a  terminology 
which  rapidly  degenerated  into  a  nonsensical  jargon.  Even 
Nicolas  of  Lyra  gives  an  account  of  the  word  act,  of  which 
so  learned  a  scholar  as  Dr.  Siegfried  is  compelled  to  ask, 
“  whether  in  any  age  whatever  any  human  being  whatever 

1  Johann.  Sarisbur.  Metalog.  ii.  9. 

2  Duns  Scot.  Opp.  ii.  175. 

3  See  Maurice,  Med.  Philosophy,  p.  154. 

4  Erasm,  Do  Eat.  Ver.  Theol.p.  87. 

5  “Hujusmodi  tricarum”  says  Erasmus  (on  1  Tim.  i.  6)  “  apud  istos  plena 
sunt  omnia.  “  Ea  explicant  verbis  non  modo  sordidis  sed  adeo  obscuris  et 
mvolutis  ut  tanti  non  sit  sic  discere.”  On  this  use  of  mere  words  see  the 
admirable  remarks  of  Locke,  Ess.  on  the  Mum.  Understanding,  ii.  cx.  §  4, 


Micrology.  291 

could  have  possibly  gained  from  it  a  single  distinct  con¬ 
ception  ?  ” 1 

8.  Yet  their  barbarous  phraseology  was  not  half  so  perni¬ 
cious  as  their  micrological  subtlety :  what  Bacon  calls  their 
unwholesome  and  vermiculate  questions,  their  vain  imagina¬ 
tions,  vain  altercations  and  vain  affectations.  Such  wordy 
wars  about  mere  nomenclature  were  foredoomed  to  sterility. 
When  they  had  ploughed  aside  philology  and  history  with 
the  share  of  empty  speculation,  over  the  whole  field  of  their 
exegesis 

“  Infelix  lolium  et  steriles  dominantur  avenae.”2 

The  “  quodlibetarii  ”  were  worse  offenders  in  this  matter 
than  the  “  Sententiarii  ”  or  “  Summistae”  They  abounded 
in  what  Calvin  calls  the  “  wandering  speculations  that  ravish 
unto  them  light  spirits/’  3 

St.  Paul’s  one  word,  fiaraLoXoryca,  sums  up  folios  of  the 
scholastic  quodUbets .  The  question  how  many  angels  could 
dance  upon  the  point  of  a  pin  is  only  an  instantia  elucescens 
of  futility,  nor  is  it  more  intrinsically  absurd  than  St.  Thomas’s 
serious  discussion  of  such  quaestiunculae ,  as  whether  angels 
could  be  in  two  places  at  once ;  or  whether  many  angels  could 
be  in  the  same  place  at  once ;  or  whether  Adam  in  a  state 
of  innocence  could  discern  the  essence  of  angels ;  or  whether 
local  distance  has  any  effect  on  the  speech  of  angels ;  or 
whether  there  is  a  definite  number  of  angels,  and  whether 


1  Siegfried,  liashis  Einfluss  iiber  Nic.  v.  Lyra  und  Luther  (Merx,  Archiv.,  i. 
431).  The  one  man  to  whom,  besides  St.  John,  the  Church  has  allowed  the 
title  of  ‘ ‘  the  Divine, ”  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  bewails  the  growth  of  theolo¬ 
gical  technicalities.  AiaTrrve  yoi  ivardaeis  Kcd  r as  avridecreis  rrjs  veas  evcre/Betas 
/cal  T7)V  fj.ucpo\6yov  (Tocpiav  .  .  .  eu  SiSaiT/ce  (pofietcrdaL  yovov,  rb  Aveiv  ttjv  tt'kttlv 
iv  ro7s  (rocpl(Tii<x(Tiv.  Orat.  xxiii. 

2  Sixtus  Senensis  who,  like  Luther,  was  educated  in  Scholasticism,  speaks  of 
it  with  equal  disfavour  (Bibl.  Sand.  p.  218).  He  says  that  the  five  methods 
of  the  Schoolmen  were,  1.  Divisio,  applied  to  the  shortest  clauses.  2.  Dis- 
tinctio,  applied  to  nearly  every  word.  3.  Allegatio ,  the  reference  to  endless 
authorities,  &c.  See  his  sketch  of  a  scholastic  sermon,  with  its  references  to 
material,  formal,  efficient,  and  final  causes  ;  its  Prooems,  Tractatio,  Mysteries, 
Narratio,  questions  from  Albert,  Alexander,  &c.,  and  illustrations  from  the 
Manipulus  Florum  and  Polyanthea. 

3  “  La  premiere  fois  que  Casaubon  vint  en  Sorbonne  ...  on  lui  dit  ‘  Voila 
une  salle  oil  il  y  a  quatre  cents  ans  qu’on  dispute  :  ’  il  dit  ‘  Qu’  a-t-on  decide  s  ’  ” 
Menagiana,  ii.  387  (Pattison’s  Casaubon,  p.  479). 


292 


Vaniloquium. 


they  all  belong  to  the  same  genus,  and  whether  they  are 
composed  of  matter  and  form.1  Nor  is  it  one  whit  more 
empty  than  Bonaventura’s  speculations  as  to  the  difference 
between  the  morning  and  evening  vision  of  celestial  in¬ 
telligences.2  These  questions  are  almost  as  meaningless  as 
that  of  Rabelais  about  the  “  chimaera  buzzing  in  a  vacuum.”  3 
And  this  vaniloquium. ,  this  'XeirToXea^la,  became  at  times 
little  short  of  blasphemous.  If  even  St.  Thomas  can  discuss 
whether  a  disembodied  soul  can  move  things  from  one  place 
to  another,  or  “  can  God  sin  if  He  wishes  to  do  so  ?  ”  or 
“  if  the  sacrament  had  been  administered  between  the 
Crucifixion  and  the  Resurrection  would  Christ  have  died  in 
it  ?  ” — we  cannot  wonder  if  meaner  intellects  discussed  such 
nonsense  as  “  whether  we  can  say  that  the  Son  is  the  Father 
and  is  not  the  Father,”  or  “whether  the  Father  produces 
the  Son  by  intellect  or  by  will.”  4  The  Schoolmen  fell  into 
the  fundamental  error  of  supposing  that  an  elaboration  of 
phraseology  is  a  science  of  theology,  and  that  we  can  add  to 
our  knowledge  of  God  by  dialectic  formulae  about  Him. 
Can  any  other  name  but  nonsense  be  given  to  discussions 

1  St.  Thomas  frequently  says  “ut  docet  Dionysius  ;  ”  and  in  the  Celestial 
Hierarchies  there  are  fifteen  long  chapters  about  the  distinctions,  &c.  of 
Angels,  arranged  in  a  sort  of  feudal  system.  See  Dante,  Parad.  xxviii.  97. 
St.  Thomas’s  argument  for  the  number  of  angels  is  derived  from  the  fact 
that  incorruptible  bodies  are  incomparably  larger  than  corruptible,  so  that  it 
is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  immaterial  substances  incomparably  exceed 
material  in  number  (tiumrn.  i.  qu.  50,  art.  8).  Duns  held  that  any  a  'priori 
proof  of  the  matter  was  impossible,  but  that  it  might  be  proved  a  posteriori 
“  quia  tot  (intelligentiae)  sint  necessariae  ad  motus  orbium  ”  (ii.  dist.  9,  qu.  4, 
art.  1). 

2  See  Die  Angelologie  der  nacliseottischen  ScholasWk,  in  Werner,  ii. 
181-201. 

_ 3  Scholasticism  cared  all  the  less  for  genuine  exegesis  because  it  was  occu¬ 
pied  with  questions  to  which  Scripture  deigned  to  give  no  answer.  Hence  its 
exegesis  was  mainly  an  attempt  to  read  asceticism,  mysticism,  and  papal 
supremacy  into  Old  Testament  books,  especially  into  the  Canticles.  ‘  ‘  Too 
many  scholars,”  says  Jeremy  Taylor,  “have  lived  upon  air  and  empty 
nothings,  falling  out  about  nothings  and  being  very  wise  about  things  that 
are  not  and  work  not.”  Via  Intelligentiae.  ( IV orks,  viii.  384.) 

4  Lud.  Yives,  De  Corrupt.  Art.  iii.  Many  such  questions  are  given  by 
Binder,  De  Theol.  Schol.  p.  24  (1624).  I  select  a  few.  “  Utrum  plus  conveniat 
Deo  non  posse  faecre  impossible ,  quam  impossibilia  non  posse  fier  i  a  Deo  ? 
XJtrum  unio  sit  entitas  aut  relatio  ?  Utrum  corpus  V.  Mariae  fuerit  expositum 
infiuentiis  stellarum  ?  Utrum  Christus  est  tantus  in  una  parva  hostia  sieut  in 
una  magna  ?  ”  and  so  on.  Ho  one  could  condemn  the  “  worship  of  inutility  ” 
in  the  schools  more  strongly  than  John  of  Salisbury.  Poly  or  at.  vii.  12. 


Frivolous  Questions. 


293 


as  to  whether  the  Father  begets  the  Divine  Essence,  or 
whether  the  Divine  Essence  begets  the  Son  ?  Whether  the 
Essence  begets  the  Essence,  or  whether  the  Essence  itself 
neither  begets  nor  is  begotten  ?  Such  questions,  as  Erasmus 
says,  it  is  more  learned  to  ignore  than  to  know.1  For  all 
these  years,  he  says,  we  have  been  frivolously  cavilling  in 
the  schools  whether  we  should  say  that  Christ  is  composed  or 
that  He  consists  of  two  natures ;  and  whether  the  right  word 
to  use  respecting  their  union  is  u  conflate,  or  commixed, 
or  “  conglutinate,”  or  “  coagmentate,  or  copulated,  or  fei  - 
ruminate  ”  What,  again,  are  we  to  say  of  the  immense  and 
long-continued  discussions  as  to  whether  the  host  still  con¬ 
tinued  to  be  the  body  of  Christ  if  it  was  eaten  by  a  mouse, 
or  the  wine  to  be  His  blood  when  tasted  by  an  insect  which 
had  fallen  into  the  chalice  ? 2  Still  more  degrading  and 
shocking  was  the  dispute  with  those  who  were  called  & tier- 
corianists?  Such  questions  show  the  dangeis  which  aiise 
from  a  mixture  of  intellectual  subtlety  and  dogmatic  servi¬ 
tude,  of  crude  materialism  and  unfathomable  superstition. 
They  are,  as  Luther  says  (omitting  his  epithet  diabolica ), 
« aiq  of  litigating  about  idle  and  useless  speculations. 
They  are,  as  Bacon  says,  “ portentosac  et  latr antes  quaestiones .” 
In  the  long  run  they  can  lead  to  nothing  but  hypocrisy  and 
scepticism.  Might  not  the  Schoolmen  have  recalled  with 
advantage  the  wise  caution  of  St.  Augustine,  “  Melius  est 
dubitare  dc  rebus  occultis  quam  litigare  de  inccrtis  ”  ? 4 


1  Eneom.  Mor.  p.  114.  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  compares  such  ^language  to 
iufffflery.  ravrbv  % v  xpycpocs  re  tt cafem  rr/r  tyiv  Kfeirrovacus  rep ra%^  rqs 
aeTaddea „  f,  Kvropxeiadcu  ruv  Qearw  navrolocs  Ka\  artpoyvrots  toy  iff  pur  tv  kcu 
Trepl  Oeov  A 4yetv  fcal  UKoieiU  KatV6rep6u  n  Kolnepiepyov.  Orat  XX 1  It  IS  to 
such  discussions  that  Pope  alludes  in  the  lines  about  Paradise,  Loso . 

“  In  quibbles  angels  and  archangels  join,  _ 

And  God  the  Father  turns  a  School  Divine." 

2  Brulifer  (t  1483),  who,  among  many  others  (Bonaventura,  Alexander  of 
Hales  Thomas  Aquinas,  Marsilius,  Paulus  of  Burgos,  Dnrandus,  &c.),  dis¬ 
cusses  the  question,  draws  distinctions  between  alvus,  uterus,  and  venter ; 
between  trajieere  and  projieerein  ventrem;  between  edere  and  vorare  ;  between 
the  mouse  as  made  of  earth,  and  as  made  of  water,  &c.  In  Sent.  iv.  dist.  13, 

qt%  ^s  to  this  miserable  controversy,  the  natural  outcome  of  unspiritual 

superstition,  see  Schaff,  Med.  Christianity,  ii.  552 

1  On  this  subject  nothing  can  be  added  to  the  wise  remarks  of  Bacon, 
Advancement  of  Learning,  and  the  valuable  note  of  Erasmus  on  Con- 


294 


Christian  Rabbinism. 


9.  But  while  the  Scriptural  exegesis  of  the  Schoolmen  was 
injured  by  all  these  causes,  the  worst  plague-spot  of  it  was 
the  assumption  that  every  part  of  Scripture  admitted  of  a 
multiplex  intellig entice.  Some  teachers,  as  J ohn  of  Salisbury 
said,  declared  in  true  Rabbinic  style,  “  singuli  apices  divinis 
pleni  sunt  sacramentis ”  and  “  lit  era  inntilis  est  nee  curandum 
guid  loquatur  ”  1  Both  notions  were  borrowed  from  the  school 
of  R.  Aqiba,  who  had  been  the  inveterate  enemy  of  Christian 
truth.  They  owe  their  parentage  not  to  Scripture  but  to  Tal¬ 
mudism  and  Kabbalism.2  They  filtered  down  to  the  Schoolmen 
through  the  Alexandrians  and  the  Fathers,  and  were  un¬ 
fortunately  perpetuated  by  the  authority  of  Jerome  and 
Augustine.3  Origen  was,  as  we  have  seen,  the  earliest  to  de~ 
velop  the  conception  that  Scripture  was  written  with  a  triple 
meaning  •  the  Latin  fathers  had  separated  his  “  spiritual  sense” 
into  allegoric  and  anagogic.4  A  favourite  illustration  of  this 


vertuntur  in  vamloquium  ;  1  Tim.  i.  6.  He  speaks  of  them  as  “  de  frivolis 
nugis  sine  fine  digladiantes ,”  and  says  that  for  ages  they  had  in  huge  volumes 
discussed  (“usque  ad  clamorem,  usque  ad  convicia )  quaestiunculae  of  which 
some  were  useless,  others  insoluble,  others  ridiculous,  others  profane.  “  Un 
des  cotes  les  plus  faux  de  cette  scolastique  detail  de  chercher  et  de  trouver  yam 
tout  deserreurs.  Hous  avons  de  ces  enumerations  d’erreurs  qui  remplissent 
des  volumes  et  souvent  parmi  ces  pretendues  erreurs  condanmees,  il  y  a  de 
tres  bonnes  choses.”  Renan.  J 

Joh.  Sarisb.  Polycrat.  vii.  12.  This  lively  thinker  knew  well  how  to 
warn,  m  similar  cases,  against  the  follies  to  which  such  a  view  must  lead. 

.  JiiUnt  m  puenhbus  Academici  senes;  omnem  dictorum  excutiunt  syllabam 
immo  et  liter  am, .  dubitantes  ad  omnia,  quaerentes  semper  sed  nunquam  ad 
scientiam  pervementesf  Metalog .  ii.  7.  (He  is  speaking  primarily  of 
logicians.)  The  Faculties  of  Louvain  and  Douai  called  it  “an  intolerable 
and  great  blasphemy  to  say  that  there  was  an  otiose  word  in  Scripture. 

n  u7!  ??raS®’  syflable>  tittle  and  point,  is  full  of  a  Divine  sense.’’  See 
Cardinal  Manning  On  the  Insp.  of  Script. 

ok\  !C  Pbrase  bor  tbe  multiplex  sensus  was  DWD  (Low  p. 

b5).  the  Kabbalists,  who  are  the  anatomists  of  words,  and  have  a  theological 
alchemy  to  draw  sovereign  tinctures  and  spirits  from  plain  and  gross  literal 
matter,  observe  m  every  variety  some  great  mystic  signification  ;  but  so  it  is 

p  m  every  Hebrew  name  and  word.”  Donne,  Essays  in  Divinity, 

Schoolmen  could  have  quoted  loose  popular  passages  of  the 
u  d,®  V  f  Seemed  t0  P°mt  t0  “  verbal  dictation.”  But  few  if  any  of 

AnnJtobVP  fhd  anyiClea//and  fixcd  concePtion  of  the  subject.  Certainly  He 
L l I  atllers  had  not  (see  J.  Delitzsch,  Be  inspir.  S.  Script.  Leipzig,  1872)  : 

■  I  •  ef  Af1  aathor  than  Tholuck  (Die  Inspir ationslehre,  1850)  says  that 
the  ancient  Church  unmistakably  held  the  language  of  Scripture  to  be  human 
and  imperfect  and  ascribed  to  the  Bible  contradictions  both  in  words  and 
facts  (see  Ladd,  Diet,  of  S.  Script,  ii.  29). 

4  They  all  continue  to  say  after  St.  Augustine  that  the  literal  sense  must 


295 


The  Fourfold  Sense. 

supposed  fourfold  sense  was  tire  word  “  Jerusalem,  which 
might  stand  for  a  city,  for  a  faithful  soul,  for  the  Church 
militant,  or  for  the  Church  triumphant.  Another  was  the 
word  “water,”  which  literally  means  an  element;  tropo- 
logically  may  stand  for  sorrow,  or  wisdom,  or  heresies,  or 
prosperity ;  allegorically  may  refer  to  baptism,  nations,  or 
grace;  anagogically  to  eternal  happiness.1  “Light”  was 
another  illustrative  word.  Thomas  Aquinas  tells  us  that 
«  Let  there  be  light  ”  may  mean  historically  an  act  of  creation  ; 
allegorically,  “  Let  Christ  be  love  ;  ”  anagogically,  “  May  we 
be  fed  by  Christ  to  glory;”  and,  tropologically,  “May  we  be 
mentally  illumined  by  Christ.”  Even  these  instances, 
though  chosen  as  special  proofs  of  the  fourfold  sense,  show 
the  emptiness  of  the  method.  Hugo  of  St.  Cher  and  others 
compare  those  four  meanings  to  the  four  coverings  of  tie 
tabernacle;  the  four  colours  of  the  veil  of  the  tabernacle; 
to  the  four  winds ;  to  the  fourfold  cherubim ;  the  four  rivers 
of  Paradise  ;  the  four  legs  of  the  table  of  the  Lord.2  .  Bishop 
Longland  preaching  before  the  University  of  Oxford  in  1525, 
on  “  ; She  hath  also  furnished  her  Table,”  3  explained  it  to  mean 


come  first  (ef.  Greg.  Pratf.  in  Job),  but  they  despised  it,  as  may  be  seen 
(among  hundreds  of  other  proofs)  in  Hugo  s  line 

a  imbutus  tentabis  grandia  tutus, 

where  he  explain,  the  parva  to  be  all  that  elucidates  the  literal  sense. 
Frudit  Didasc  v.  2.  Bonaventura  says  that  even  in  a  single  lettel  the 
Scripture  begets  a  multiform  wisdom,  but  that  “sub  cortice  Uterae  oceult- 
t,  •  n  vstica  et  profunda  intelligentia.”  An  anonymous  monk  of  St. 
vf  toSs  back  however  on  the  oFd  remark  of  the  Rabbis,  Ongen,  Augus- 
ttnUand  Jeiurn;  tbrtth. Utter  of  Scripture,  without  allegory,  _  has  many 
things  "falsa,  inepta,  inutilia,  impedMm  ad  adermm  mtam.  Diestel, 

m?'pZatin  Gen.  Durandus  (t  1296),  the  Doctor  resolution, mis  author  of 
th e  Rationale  div.  offidorum,  says  that  the :  beam  which ‘ 

"a^  represents  the  Cross,  and  the  ro?e  the  Sollies ,  P , 


296 


The  Fourfold  Sense . 

that  Wisdom  had  set  forth  in  her  Scriptural  banquet  the 
four  courses  of  History,  Tropology,  Anagogy,  and  Allegory. 
Not  content  even  with  the  fourfold  sense,  Bonaventura  and 
others  contend  for  sevenfold  or  even  eightfold  senses,1  and 
there  is  just  as  much  reason  for  the  one  number  as  for  the 
other.  In  point  of  fact  any  book  may  by  these  methods  be 
made  to  bear  any  number  of  meanings,  and  the  student  in 
the  Epistolae  Obscurorum  Virorum  may  scarcely  have  been 
exaggerating  when  he  says  that  he  had  attended  unarm 
lectionem  in  poetria  where  he  had  heard  Ovid  expounded 
naturaliter,  liter  aliter ,  his  t  o  ri  a  liter,  et  spiritucditer .2  To  apply 
such  a  system  to  the  Bible  after  all  that  God  has  revealed 
to  us  respecting  it  can  only  be  regarded  as  an  immense 
anachronism.3  It  is  subversive  of  all  exactitude,  even  if  it 
be  not  fatal  to  all  truth. 

10.  But  the  system,  besides  saving  the  trouble  of  much 
study,  was  advantageous  to  hierarchic  usurpations.  It  made 
of  Scripture  an  Apocalyptic  book  with  seven  seals,  which  only 
priests  and  monks  wTere  able  to  unlock.4  It  made  a  standing 
dogma  of  the  “  obscurity”  of  Scripture,  which  was  thus  kept 
safely  out  of  the  hands  of  the  multitude.5  It  made  the  Pope 
the  doorkeeper  of  Scripture,  not  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  placed  at 
the  clisjiosal  of  the  hierarchy  an  indefinite  number  of  flaccid 
symbols  which  might  be  oracularly  applied  to  prove  whatever 


sufficeret,  he  says,  “  esset  grammalicae  peritus  factus  illico  consummates 
theologus. 

.  Angel om us,  because  of  the  seven-sealed  book  in  the  Apocalypse  (!)  ex¬ 
plained  the  Book  of  Kings  in  seven  senses,  historic,  allegoric,  parabolic,  dog¬ 
matic,  &c.  See  Rosenmuller,  Hist.  hit.  v.  153. 

2  Some  read  Virgil  only  to  allegorise  him.  Lup ton’s  edition  of  Colet  on 
J  lie  Corinthians,  introd.  p.  xxiv.  Bernard  Svlvester  of  Chartres  (f  1167) 
allegorised  the  whole. history  of  .Eneas,  whom  he  made  the  symbol  of  the 
sou  (see  Johann.  Sarisb.  Metctlog.  iii.  4),  and  his  Glossules  may  be  taken  “as 

a  good  argumentum  ad  absurdum  for  the  entire  method  of  allegorising  ” 
Boole,  Med.  Thoughts,  p.  119.  ° 

?  7V1  y\  ‘  Neale  says,  “  If  Scripture  has  not  an  undercurrent  of  meaning, 
double,  treble,  quadruple,  or  even  yet  more  manifold,  all  primitive  and  mediaeval 
commentators  from  the  first  century  to  the  Reformation  ....  have  been  sub¬ 
stituting  their  fancies  for  God’s  immutable  verities — have  adopted  a  system 
which  is  alike  the  offspring  and  the  parent  of  error.”  Dissertation,  p.  377. 

.  d  amune  (De  Verbo  Dei,  iii.  3)  says  that  exegesis  needs  the  aid  of  the 
r11  Aii  10  ls  only  found  in  a  council  approved  by  the  Pope. 

Albertus  Magnus  uses  this  argument. 


Perverted  Texts . 


297 


they  desired.  Tropology  was.  at  the  service  alike  of  ecclesias¬ 
tical  dogma  and  priestly  usurpation.  Jesus  raising  the 
dead  before  a  few  witnesses  was  used  to  prove  the  duty  of 
private  confession  to  a  priest.  While  Scripture  narratives 
were,  in  the  literal  sense,  treated  as  “  bare  dead  histories  which 
concern  men  no  more/5 1  the  Levitical  system  was  adduced  m 
absolute  defiance  of  the  whole  idea  of  the  New  Testament  to 
shew  that  Christian  presbyters  were  sacrificial  priests.* 

“  Domini  sunt  car  dims  terrac ,”  the  Vulgate  rendering  of  “  the 
pillars  of  the  earth  are  the  Lord’s  ”  (1  Sam.  ii.  8),  was  applied 
to  the  cardinals.  The  eighth  Psalm  was  used  by  Antonins, 
Bishop  of  Florence,  to  mean  that  God  put  all  things  under 
the  feet  of  the  Pope,— sheep,  i.e .,  Christians ;  oxen,  i.e.,  Jews 
and  heretics  ;  beasts  of  the  field,  i.e.,  pagans ;  and  fishes  of 
the  sea,  i.e.,  souls  in  purgatory.  “  Thou  hast  broken  the  heads 
of  the  dragon  in  the  waters”  (Ps.  lxxiv.  13)  proved  the 
expulsion  of  demons  by  baptism.3  The  celibacy  of  priests 
was  supported  by  the  comparison,  in  Canticles,  of  the  cheeks 
of  the  beloved  to  doves.4  The  root  of  the  tree  in  Daniel’s, 
vision  (Dan.  iv.  12)  furnished  a  proof  of  the  Immaculate 
Conception  of  the  Virgin.  The  two  rods  of  Zechariah  (xi.  7) 
are  types  of  the  Dominicans  and  Franciscans.  The  papal 
canonisation  of  saints  was  maintained  by  a  reference  to  the 
putting  of  a  lamp  on  a  lampstand  (Matt.  v.  15).  So  far  back 
as  the  ninth  century  Babanus  Maurus  (t  856)  in  his  De 
Glericorum  Institutione  had  found  chorepiscopi  in  the  seventy 
elders,  “  Headers  ”  in  Ezek.  xxxiii.  7,  and  the  Roman  Catholic 
system  of  service  generally  in  Mosaism  and  the  Psalms-. 
Baronius  pretended  to  discover  that  our  Lord  put  on  a 
pontifical  vestment  for  the  celebration  of  the  Lord  s  supper.5 
Nor  must  it  be  supposed  that  these  were  treated  as  passing 


1  Luther. 

2  Hervaeus  Dolensis  on  Matt.  ix.  18-26.  7  -n  7 

3  Compare  similar  interpretations  of  J ob  i.  14,  m  Neale  s  Mediaeval  Pr cachet  s, 

n  xxx  where  this  style  of  exegesis  is  defended. 

1  4  Cardinal  Cusanus  admits  that  Rome  made  the  sense  of  Scripture  vary 

'"f1  \nmla  1  IbV'  Therebuke^of  Casattbonis  “  Iloecine  est  Divina  oracula 
cum  timore  ’tractare,  humana  figmenta  sacris  narratiombus  ex  sue  semper  Utt- 
miscere  i  ”  ( Excrcitationes .  p.  439,  ap.  llurlwall,  Choj g:s,  l.  la  ). 


298  Abuse  of  Scripture. 

applications.  On  the  contrary,  as  we  have  already  seen,  they 
were  endowed  with  a  demonstrative  force  by  Innocent  III. 
and  Boniface  VIII.  in  crises  of  intense  seriousness.1  Because 
kings  were  not  excepted  in  the  command  “  Feed  my  lambs’’ 
Boniface  maintained  that  a  Papal  Legate  might  trample  on 
the  decrees  of  Emperors.  Even  the  plural  “  keys  ”  was  a 
sufficient  proof  that  the  Pope  was  to  exercise  kingly  as  well 
as  pontifical  power,  and  that  the  (forged)  “  donation  ”  of 
Constantine  was  only  a  restitution.  He  explained  “  Launch 
into  the  deep  ”  to  mean  “  Go  to  Rome  ;  betake  thyself  to  the 
city  which  has  dominion  over  all  nations,  and  there  lay  down 
thy  net.” 2  The  hideous  and  unutterable  infamies  of  the 
Inquisition  were  defended  by  the  words,  “  they  gather  them 
in  bundles  and  burn  them  ”  “  0  temerariam  impudentiam  ” 

exclaims  Luther  of  this  and  similar  allegories,  “  et  scelestam 
ambitionem  !  ”  3 

We  may  perhaps  wonder  that  there  had  been  no  stronger 
and  earlier  revolt  against  this  vast  usurpation.  But  there  is 
no  need  to  wonder.  There  was  no  Prophet  more.  The 

priests  loved  to  have  it  so,  for  it  offered  boundless  facility 
for  sermons,  and  gave  a  fine  semblance  of  freedom.  The 
people  loved  to  have  it  so,  for  they  did  not  want  to  be 
troubled  with  independent  thought.  They  were  glad  to 
resign  the  responsibility  for  their  beliefs  and  their  future 
salvation  into  the  hands  of  those  who  claimed  to  have  the 
infallibility  of  knowledge  and  the  keys  of  heaven  and  hell. 
Like  the  Israelites  of  old,  the  mass  of  men  did  not  wish 
to  hear  the  voice  of  God.  They  had  said  to  the  Pope 

1  “The  greater  light”  is  the  Papacy,  Innocent  III.  Decret.  Gregor,  ix. 

lib.  i.  tit.  xxxiii.  The  two  swords,  Boniface  VIII.  Extrav .  lib.  i.  tit.  viii. 

It  was  convenient  to  forget  the  wise  rule,  “Theologia  parabolica  non  eat 
demons  trativa.  ” 

2  “  1’Evangelio  e  i  Dottor  magni 

Son  derelitti,  e  solo  ai  Decretal i 

Si  stndia  si  che  parea  a’  lor  vigagni. 

A  questo  intende  ii  Papa  e  i  Cardin ali : 

Non  vanno  i  lor  pensieri  a  Nazzarette 
La  dove  Gabbriello  aperse  Pali.” — Dante,  Par  ad.  ix. 
133-138.  Comp.  id.  Da  Monarchia ,  iii.  p.  137. 

3  SeeMilman,  Lat.  Christianity,  vi.  405. 


299 


The  Papal  Church. 


“  Speak  thou  to  us.  Let  not  God  speak  with  us.  And 
the  people  stood  afar  off.  1 

But  since  the  Papal  Church  could  thus  prove  to  her  own 
satisfaction  the  infallibility  of  every  doctrine  of  mediaeval 
sacerdotalism ;  since  she  could  openly  maintain  that  if  the 
Bible  seemed  to  collide  with  any  crystallised  dogma  of  her 
scholasticism,  the  Bible  must  give  way  ;  since  she  could 
extract  from  Scripture  the  defence  of  her  own  unlimited 
pretensions  in  hundreds  of  ways  inconceivably  remote  from 
the  intentions  of  the  sacred  writers;  since  she  held  the 
Bible  thus  bound  with  the  double  chains  of  dogma  and 
allegory,  it  is  clear  that  nothing  short  of  the  Beformation 
was  required  to  shake  down  the  prison- walls  of  system,  and 
to  rescue  the  Scriptures  from  these  centuries  of  misuse.  To 
maintain  the  fourfold  sense  was  for  mediaeval  Bomanism  a 
matter  of  life  and  death.  It  was  necessary  for  her  power 
that  dogmatic  prepossession  and  traditional  authority  should 
reign  supreme.  The  more  ingeniously  texts  were  manipu¬ 
lated  in  her  interests,  the  more  loudly  she  proclaimed  that 
such  interpretations  alone  were  “  spiritual  and  were  due 
to  “  illuminating  grace.”  The  motto  of  the  Bernardines,  like 
that  of  the  Alexandrians,  Nisi  credideritis  non  intelligetis  was 
practically  made  to  mean  “  Protestants  despise  our  arguments 
from  allegories  because  they  are  devoid  of  the  Spirit.  2  The 
vitality  of  such  notions  is  astonishing.  In  1777  a  book  was 
published  called  Samsons  Hair,  an  Eminent  Representation  of 
the  Church  of  God.  “  Some,”  says  the  writer,  “  may  object 
against  this  that  the  hair  of  a  man’s  head  is  a  mean  thing 
to  represent  so  great  and  glorious  a  thing  as  the  Church  of 
Christ.  To  which  I  answer,  ‘  Glory  over  me,  thou  infidelity, 

thou  first-born  of  the  devil,  if  thou  canst. 

But  the  fourfold  sense  which  might  have  survived  Erasmus, 
and  even  Luther,  received  its  death-blow  from  the  masculine 
cmod  sense  of  the  English  Beformers.  “  We  may  borrow 


1  Ex.  xx.  19-21.  See  Lange,  Grundriss,  p.  4. 

s  leones  Trevecto  (Rioted  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  Conybeare  in  Ms  Bampton 
Lectures,  1824). 


300 


English  Theology. 

similitudes  or  allegories  from  the  Scriptures/’  says  the  great 
translator  Tyndale,  “  and  apply  them  to  our  purjioses,  which 
allegories  are  no  sense  of  the  Scriptures,  but  free  things 
besides  the  Scriptures  altogether  in  the  liberty  of  the  Spirit. 
Such  allegory  proveth  nothing,  it  is  a  mere  simile.  God 
is  a  Spirit,  and  all  his  words  are  spiritual,  and  His  literal 
sense  is  spiritual?  1  “  As  to  those  three  spiritual  senses,”  says 

Whitaker,  the  opponent  of  Bellarmine,2  “  it  is  surely  foolish 
to  say  there  are  as  many  senses  in  Scripture  as  the  words 
themselves  may  be  transferred  and  accommodated  to  bear. 
For  although  the  words  may  be  applied  and  accommodated 
tropologically,  anagogieally,  allegorically,  or  any  other  way ,  yet 
there  are  not  therefore  various  senses,  various  interpretations, 
and  explications  of  Scripture,  but  there  is  but  one  sense  and 
that  the  literal,  which  may  be  variously  accommodated,  and 
from  which  various  things  may  be  collected.”  3 


It  is  always  an  evil  to  create  any  discontinuity  between 
ourselves  and  the  past.  It  has  not  been  my  object  to  hunt 
out  the  details  of  ancient  error ;  still  less  to  glory  in  the 
superiority  of  modern  insight.  If  we  are  compelled  to  study 

1  See  his  chapter  on  “The  Four  Senses  of  Scripture”  in  Obedience  of  a 
Christian  Man. 

2  Dispute  on  Holy  Scripture,  p.  409  (Parker  Society). 

b  Even  Dean  Golet,  though  he  admitted  the  fourfold  sense,  yet  says  that 
the  New  Testament  “  has  for  the  most  part  the  sense  that  appears  on  the 
surface  ;  nor  is  one  thing  said  and  another  meant,  but  the  very  thing  is  meant 
which  is  said,  and  the  sense  is  wholly  literal.”  See  further,  Colet,  On  the 
Hierarchies  of  Dionysius,  p.  107  (ed.  Lupton),  and  on  Gal.  iv.  24.  Colet 
compares  the  anagogic  sense  to  the  Kabbala  (l.  c.  p.  112),  and  had  been  deeply 
influenced  by  Mirandola  and  Plotinus.  Mr.  Lupton  also  kindly  refers  me  to 
Mr.  Alexander  Gill  (High  Master  of  St.  Paul’s),  who,  in  his  Sacred 
Philosophic  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  (1635,  p.  165),  compares  David’s  cutting  off 
the  lap  of  Saul’s  robe  to  Ps.  xxii.  18 — “  They  parted  my  garments  among  them  ” 
— “  For,”  he  says,  “  Saul  was  a  figure  of  Christ.”  He  adds,  “But,  you  say, 
the  Scripture  is  not  to  be  strained,  for  by  that  means  everie  thing  can  be' made 
of  any  thing.”  His  answer  to  this  very  natural  objection  is  supremely  invalid. 
“At  the  Reformation,”  says  Bishop  Marsh,  “it  became  a  maxim  among 
Protestants,  that  the  words  of  Scripture  had  only  one  sense,  and  that  they 
who  ascribed  to  them  various  senses  made  the  meaning  of  Scripture  altogether 
uncertain.”  Criticism  and  Interpretation,  Lect.  xii.,  p.  506.  “  No  such  universal 
rule  ”  (for  allegorical  interpretation),  says  Bishop  van  Mildert,  “  is  to  be  found 
in  Scripture.  It  is  nowhere  laid  down  as  a  maxim,  that  there  is  in  every  part 
of  the  sacred  writings,  nor  even  in  the  greater  part,  a  hidden  spiritual  sense-1’ 
Bampton  Lect.,  p.  250. 


Scholastic  Saints. 


301 


and  to  point  out  tlie  errors  of  the  past,  it  should  be  in  a 
spirit  of  humility,  and  not  of  malice  ;  it  should  be  that  we 
may  faithfully  learn,  not  vainly  triumph.  Nothing  can  be 
more  beautiful  than  the  character  and  example  of  many  of 
the  Schoolmen,  nothing  keener  than  their  intellectual  subtlety, 
nothing  more  admirable  than  their  unwearied  diligence. 
When  we  think  of  the  blameless  life  of  the  Venerable  Bede, 
devoted  from  the  age  of  seven  years  upwards  to  the  study  of 
Scripture  m  the  calm  retirement  of  Jarrow,  and  ended  while 
he  was  dictating  to  his  young  scholar  the  last  words  of  his 
comment  on  St.  John;1— of  the  young  Bernard  of  Clairvaux, 
standing  neck-deep  m  the  ice-cold  stieam  to  subdue  the  pas 
sions  of  the  flesh,  and  devoting  his  life  to  saintly  self-denial ; 
of  his  unhappy  rival,  the  brilliant  Abelard,  hiding  his  shame 
and  agony  in  the  monastery  of  St.  Gildas  de  Rliuys,  and 
dying  in  humble  peace  under  the  gentle  care  of  Peter  or 
Glugny ; — of  Bonaventura,  of  whom  his  master,  Alexander 
of  Hales,  used  to  say  that  “  in  Bonaventura  Adam  did  not 
sm ;  ”  who,  when  appointed  Cardinal,  was  found  humbly 
washing  the  vessels  of  his  monastery,  and  when  his  great 
contemporary  asked  lnm  the  source  of  his  vast  learning, 
pointed  in  silence  to  his  crucifix ; — of  the  chancellor  Gerson 
feathering  the  little  children  round  his  sick  bed,  and  bidding 
them  uplift  their  little  white  hands  with  the  prayer,  “  Lord, 
have  mercy  on  thy  poor  servant  Jean  Gerson;” — of  Albert 
the  Great  preferring  his  position  of  a  humble  monk  to  the 
Bishopric  of  Ratisbon  which  he  resigned  of  Thomas  of 
Acpiino  in  his  profound  humility,  his  rapturous  visions,  his 
cdorious  daily  prayer,  Du  mihi  Domino  cor  nobilo  quod  nulla 
ad  terram  dctrahat  terrena  ciffedio,  his  holy  answer  to  the 
Vision  “  Bene  scripsisti  de  me,  Thoma ;  quam  mercedem  a  me 
accipies?”  Non  aliam  nisi  te,  Domine of  the  incredible 
diligence,  sanctity,  and  learning  of  Duns  Scotus,  who  had 
influenced  the  entire  theology  and  philosophy  of  his  day 
before  his  early  death  at  the  age  of  thirty-four  ; 2— of  the  iron 

1  Sigebert,  De  Script.  Ecclcs.  S3.  Bede’s  version  of  St.  John  is  the  first 
extant  specimen  of  English  prose. 

2  Milman,  Latin  Christianity,  b.k.  xiv.  3. 


302 


Their  Example. 


logic  and  dauntless  courage  with  which  Occam,  the  Doctor 
Invincibilis,  “  the  demagogue  of  scholasticism,”  braved  in 
defence  of  civil  liberty  the  excommunication  of  the  Pope, 
and  in  defence  of  absolute  poverty  the  excommunication  of 
his  own  order — when  we  think  of  the  mingled  holiness  and 
intellectual  power  of  these  great  men,  we  revolt  at  the 
thought  of  speaking  about  them  with  flippancy  or  disrespect. 
If  they  had  left  nothing  else  to  the  Church,  they  have  left 
the  best  of  all  legacies — the  legacy  of  holy  lives  and  an 
immortal  example ;  the  legacy  of  men  who  during  years  of 
unselfish  sincerity  spurned  delights  and  lived  laborious  days. 
The  writings  of  some  of  them  will  be  always  valuable  for  the 
spirit  of  deep  devotion  which  they  breathe,  for  high  moral 
teaching,  for  profound  philosophical  and  theological  investiga¬ 
tion.  But  their  lives  were  better  than  their  learning.  They 
had  found  Christ,  even  though  they  read  His  name  by  wrong 
methods.  I  have  not  been  speaking  of  their  writings  in 
general,  or  of  the  many  high  services  which  they  rendered 
to  their  generation  and  to  mankind.  I  have  been  speaking 
only  of  their  exegesis,  and  respecting  that  branch  of  their 
labours  it  is  impossible  to  avoid  pronouncing  the  judgment 
that  it  was  radically  defective — defective  in  fundamental 
principles,  and  rife  on  every  .page  of  it  with  all  sorts  of 
erroneous  details.  It  demonstrates  the  amazing  vitality  of 
error;  the  fatally  stupefying  effects  which  result  from  the 
attempt  to  crush  free  inquiry  under  the  leaden  weight  of 
authority  and  tradition;  the  hopeless  insecurity  of  super¬ 
structures,  even  when  they  have  been  elaborated  with  the 
utmost  care  and  skill,  which  have  been  based  on  shallow, 
imaginary,  or  untested  foundations.  But  the  sadness  of 
these  facts  is  irradiated  by  one  truth  of  which  they  furnish 
the  strongest  evidence.  It  is  that  the  Bible  may  be  obscured 
for  centuries  by  bad  translations,  and  buried  under  mountain¬ 
loads  of  valueless  and  erroneous  exposition  ;  that  it  may  be 
withheld  from  the  ignorant,  and  grossly  mis-interpreted  by 
the  learned ;  that  it  may  even  be  abused  as  a  bulwark  of 
immense  follies,  and  a  pretext  for  enormous  crimes;  and 


Grandeur  of  Scripture.  303 

yet  that  there  is  in  the  truths  which  constitute  its  essence 
so  divine  a  preciousness,  so  innate  a  force,  that  never  in 
any  age  has  it  ceased  to  teach  men  the  way  of  salvation, 
never  has  it  lost  the  power  to  brighten  happiness  and  to 
console  affliction,  to  inspire  men  with  courage  for  the  ameli¬ 
oration  of  social  wrongs,  for  the  overthrow  of  popular  idols, 
for  the  assault  on  ancient  errors,  for  the  restatement  of 
forgotten  and  neglected  truths.  Men  may  still  continue  to 
misunderstand  and  to  misrepresent  it ;  to  turn  it  into  a  grim 
idol  or  a  mechanical  fetish;  to  betray  it  with  the  kiss  of 
false  devotion,  and  to  thrust  it  between  the  soul  and  the  Clod 
Whom  it  was  designed  to  reveal;  but  to  the  end  of  all 
time — and  herein  consists  its  divine  authority — it  shall  guide 
the  souls  of  the  humble  to  the  strait  gate  and  the  narrow 
way  which  leadetli  to  eternal  life — to  the  end  of  all  time 
“  an  highway  shall  be  there,  and  a  way,  and  it  shall  be  called 
The  way  of  holiness ;  the  unclean  shall  not  pass  over  it ;  but 
whosoever  walketh  in  the  way,  yea,  and  even  fools,  shall  not 
err  therein.”  1 


1  Is.  xxxv.  7,  S. 


<l  Proinde  volo  liber  esse.” — Luther. 


« So  wird  diese  Gesebichte  nicht  allein  Geschichte  der  Finstemiss 
mid  der  Verringungen  ;  siewird  auch  eine  Gesdnclite  der  Dammerung, 
der  Morgenrothe,  und  des  endlich  angebrochenen  hellen  Tages  werden. 
_ W.  Meyer,  Gesch.  d.  Schrifterlcldruvg ,  i.  6. 


“  Unless— what  whispers  me  of  times  to  come  1 
What  if  it  be  the  mission  of  that  age 
My  death  will  usher  into  life,  to  shake 
This  torpor  of  assurance  from  our  creed, 

As  we  broke  up  that  old  faith  of  the  world 
Have  we,  next  age,  to  break  up  thus  the  new 
Faith  in  the  thing  grown  faith  in  the  report— 

Whence  need  to  bravely  disbelieve  report  „ 

Through  increased  faith  in  thing  reports  belie  1 

_ The  Pope  in  The  Ring  and  the  Book  (Browning). 


X 


LECTURE  YI. 


THE  REFORMERS. 

“  He  that  hath,  my  word,  let  him  speak  my  word  faithfully.  What  hath  the 
straw  to  do  with  the  wheat  ?  saith  the  Lord.  — Jer.  xxiii.  J8. 

The  Reformation  is  very  inadequately  and  negatively 
represented  by  the  word  “  Protestantism/’1  If  in  its  narrower 
aspect  it  was  a  revolt  against  Romanism,  it  was  in  reality 
but  one  scene  in  the  vast  drama  of  human  progress  in  which 
Rome  herself  was  compelled  to  take  her  part.  Her  awaken- 
rnent,  her  purification,  her  better  line  of  Popes,  her  Council 
of  Trent,  her  Society  of  Jesus,  resulted  in  no  small  degree 
from  the  work  which  owed  its  personal  impulse  to  the  mighty 
passion  and  genius  of  Luther.  Those  who  reconcile  it  with 
their  sense  of  justice  to  call  him  the  father  of  infidelity, 
might  with  just  as  much  truth  have  called  him  the  restorer 
of  the  Papacy.  For  the  work  of  Luther,  like  that  of  Origen, 
was  the  watershed  of  many  divergent  influences.  If  in  the 
one  direction  he  is  to  be  held  responsible  for  the  teaching  of 
Denck  and  Miintzer,  and  in  another  of  Lessing  and  Strauss ; 
assuredly  he  was  also  the  cause  of  a  marked  improvement  in 
the  Romish  Church,  of  the  energy  of  her  counter-Reform a- 
tion,  and  of  the  improvement  in  morality  and  discipline 
within  her  pale. 


1  It  should  however  be  observed  that  the  Protest  of  Spiers,  if  negative 
against  particular  doctrines,  was  positive  in  its  assertion  of  the  liberty  of 
conscience.  _ 

x  2 


308 


The  Reformation. 


But  in  point  of  fact,  as  history  has  proved  again  and  again, 
it  is  absurd  and  misleading  to  charge  men  with  all  the  results 
which  may  spring  indirectly  from  their  teaching  or  character. 
Their  work  must  be  judged  with  reference  to  the  times  and 
circumstances  in  which  it  was  accomplished.  We  might  as 
well  make  St.  Paul  responsible  for  Marcion  or  St.  John  for 
Valentinus,  or  charge  Christianity  with  the  follies  and  extrava¬ 
gances  of  Gnosticism,  or  lay  at  the  door  of  Las  Casas  the 
guilt  of  negro  slavery,  or  brand  the  memory  of  Lafayette 
with  the  blood  spilt  in  the  Reign  of  Terror,  as  lay  at  Luther  s 
door  the  errors  which  have  arisen  among  the  sects  and 
churches  which  were  first  called  into  existence  by  his  heroic 
personality.  He  was  but  one  among  many  influences 
mightier  than  himself,  and  his  work  was  but  a  single  current 
in  a  tide  of  which  the  forces  are  to  this  day  unspent.  The 
Reformation  was  “  the  life  of  the  Renaissance  infused  into 
religion  under  the  influence  of  men  of  the  grave  and  earnest 
Teutonic  race ;  a  return  to  nature  which  was  not  a  rebellion 
against  God,  an  appeal  to  reason  which  left  room  for  loyal 
allegiance  to  the  Bible  and  to  Christ.”  1 

He  must  indeed  be  incapable  of  fairness  who  can  ignore 
the  services  once  rendered  by  the  Papacy  to  the  cause  of 
civilisation  and  humanity.  These  services  have  been  recog¬ 
nised  as  generously  by  Comte 2  and  Mazzini3  as  by  He 
Lamennais  4  and  Le  Maistre.5  But 

“  The  old  order  changetli,  giving  place  to  new, 

And  God  fulfils  Himself  in  many  ways 

Lest  one  good  custom  should  corrupt  the  world.” 

In  the  sixteenth  century  the  whole  Papal  system  had, 
even  on  the  confession  of  its  own  historians,  sunk  into  a 
formalism  and  corruption  which  made  it  a  curse  to  mankind. 

.  1  Beard,  Hibbert  Lectures ,  p.  2.  Perhaps  rather  “Religion  infused  into  the 
Renaissance.”  What  the  Renaissance  was  without  the  Reformation  >mav  he 
seen  in  such  men  as  Leo  X.,  Bembo,  Bibbiena,  Panormita,  Filelfo,  Politian, 
Pomponatius,  &c.  (see  Gieseler,  v.  181-184). 

2  Cours  de  Politique  Positive. 

3  See  the  very  powerful  and  eloquent  testimony  of  Mazzini  in  the  Fortniqhtlv 
Review,  1870,  p.  731. 

4  Eesai  sur  V  Indifference,  1817. 

5  Du  Pape,  181 9, 


The  Papacy. 


809 


An  even  more  tremendous  indictment  against  the  decadent 
morality  of  Rome  and  her  priesthood  might  be  drawn  from 
the  writings  of  Petrarch,  Gerson,  Machiavelli,  Picus  of 
Mirandola,  or  Savonarola,  than  from  those  of  Boccaccio  and 
the  Italian  novelists.1  Even  in  the  Paradiso  of  Dante  you 
may  hear  the  cry  of  holy  indignation  wrung  Irom  the 
assembled  saints  while  St.  Pietro  Damiano  denounces  the 
gross  luxuries  of  the  priesthood  ;  and  in  the  same  mighty 
song  the  unworthiness  of  the  successors  of  St.  Peter  had 
made  the  living  topazes  of  heaven  bicker  into  ruby  hues  of 
fiery  wrath  while  the  great  Apostle  fulminates  his  more  than 
papal  anathema  against  the  blood-stained  and  avaricious 
pontiffs  who  have  usurped  on  earth  “  My  place,  my  place. 
My  Place  !  ”  And  things  grew  worse  and  worse.  How 
could  Rome  be  respected  when  the  world  saw  such  pontiffs 
as  Sixtus  IV.,  Innocent  VIII.,  Alexander  VI.,  Julius  II.,  and 
Clement  VII.,  not  to  mention  such  a  once-dissolute  sophist 
as  Pius  II.  (Aeneas  Sylvius),  or  such  an  elegant  epicurean 
as  Leo  X.  ?  How  could  the  world  tolerate  on  the  lips  of 
simonists,  nepotists,  adulterers,  and  worse,  the  claim  to 
absolute  dominion  over  religion,  the  claim  to  be  sole  in¬ 
terpreters  of  Scripture,  and  the  immediate  recipients  of  the 
power  and  authority  of  Christ  V2  How  could  men  endure  that 
such  persons  should  be  addressed  by  a  trembling  sycophancy 
as  “  our  Lord  and  God  ”  ?  How  could  they  suffer  a  man  so 
vile  as  Sixtus  IV.  to  found,  unquestioned,  that  Spanish  In¬ 
quisition  which  is  perhaps  the  most  abhorrent  phenomenon 
ever  presented  to  the  loathing  of  the  world  ?  Was  his 
successor,  Innocent  VIII.,  amid  his  life  of  criminal  luxury 
to  let  loose,  unquestioned,  a  man  like  Sprenger,  whose 
Malleus  Maleficarum  has  well  been  called  a  monstrous 

1  See  proofs  only  too  overwhelming  in  Gieseler,  v.  §  139. 

2  See  Dorner,  Hist,  of  Prot.  Theol.  i.  35,  E.  I.  The  most  extravagant 
statement  of  Papal  claims  may  be  found  in  Augustin  Trionfo,  Be,  Potestate 
Ecelesiae,  who  says  that  “worship,  equal  to  that  due  to  the  saints,  greater 
than  that  to  the  angels,  belongs  to  the  Pope  ”  (Trionfo,  ix.  72).  Papal  claims 
were  supported  by  such  exegesis  as  this  :  Quod  Papa  sit  Bevs  Im'peratons 
juxta  illud  “  Ecce  constitui  te  Beum  Pharaonis.”  Gerson  (Be  Potest.  Eccl.  1  ; 
Considered.  10);  protests  against  these  extravagances. 


310 


Corruption  of  the  Church. 

bastard  of  priestcraft  and  scholasticism?”  Were  popes,  of 
whom  some  were  equal  to  Nero  and  Domitian  in  crime,  but 
from  their  positions  and  their  professions  far  viler  in  infamy,  to 
be  suflered  for  ever  to  wield  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  a  power 
with  which  that  even  of  the  Caesars  was  not  to  be  compared? 
The  ecclesiastical  casuistry  which  could  not  quite  suffocate 
the  moral  sense  or  suppress  the  burning  blush  of  the  Emperor 
Sigismund  at  the  Council  of  Constance,  was  still  less  able  to 
crush  a  rebellion  which  was  headed,  on  all  sides,  by  the  noble 
indignation  and  the  revolted  conscience  of  mankind. 

The  institutions  of  piety  were  thoroughly  corrupted.  Theo- 
logy  had  sunk  into  a  dull,  dead,  and  cumbrous  scholasticism,1 
which  so  far  from  reconciling  faith  with  knowledge  had  but 
deepened  the  chasm  between  the  two.  If  John  of  Salisbury 
in  the  twelfth  century  had  complained  of  its  slavish  depen¬ 
dence,  and  miserable  pettiness — if  Jttoger  Bacon  in  the 
thnteenth  had  said  that  it  hxnguet  et  usininat  eircum  mcde 
intellecta  in  the  course  of  three  more  centuries  its  questions 
had  become  more  “  vermiculate,”  its  terminology  more  bar¬ 
barous,  and  its  whole  foundationless  superstructure,  reared 
only  on  the  sand,  was  tottering  under  the  waterfloods,  which 
began  to  burst  upon  it.  A  sacerdotalism,  at  once  arrogant, 
intolerant,  immoral,  and  idle,  headed  by  a  Pope  who  might  be 
at  once  a  “  priest,  an  atheist,  and  a  god,”  had  radically  cor¬ 
rupted  the  lifeblood  of  the  Church  by  dividing  it  into  two 
classes,  the  ruling  and  the  ruled.  It  had  poisoned  the  veins 
of  all  Christian  life  by  substituting  a  visionary  satisfaction 
foi  a  true  reconciliation,  and  a  mechanical  conformity  for  a 
holy  life.  Piety  was  practically  identified  with  the  obser¬ 
vance  of  ecclesiastical  rules.  Impunity  was  sold  to  the  living 
and  deliverance  to  the  dead.2  Monasticism,  itself  polluted 

>  i  Theologiae  turn  materia  non  sacrae  literae  et  Scripturae  divinae  erant, 
stalquaedam  obscurae  et  spinosae  intricataeque  quaestiones,  quarum  nugatoria 
subtihtate  exercebantur  et  defatigabantur  ingenia”  (Camerarius,  Fit.  Me - 
lanchth.  c.  in.). 

2  See  a  very  fine  passage  of  Erasmus  (. Annott .  in  1  Tim.  i.  6),  which  is  too 
long  to  quote,  but  is  full  of  indignant  eloquence  against  the  slothful  and 
corrupt  priesthood  “  Metuebant  tyrannidi  suae,  si  mundus  resipisceret  ” 

(  >pp.  ix.  490).  But  perhaps  some  may  be  more  open  to  conviction  if  I 


Decadence  of  Religion . 


311 


by  confessed  and  countless  abominations,  seized  upon  selfish¬ 
ness  as  the  basis  of  religion,  and  expanded  it  to  infinit) . 
Asceticism,  darkening  at  once  the  teaching  of  Sciipture,  the 
meaning  of  life,  and  the  character  of  God,  taught  that 
celibacy  was  holier  than  marriage,  and  that  self-inflicted 
tortures  could  expiate  for  spiritual  sins.  The  very  con¬ 
ception  of  morality  was  vitiated.  A  priesthood  calling  itself  the 
Church — a  priesthood  whose  vices  were  the  complaint  of  the 
theologian  and  the  motive  of  the  novelist,  the  despair  of  the 
good  and  the  execration  of  the  multitude  claimed  absolute 
authority  over  men's  bodies  and  souls,  shut  the  Bible  from 
the  many,  turned  Christ  into  a  wrathful  Avenger,  made  it 
easier  for  the  rich  than  for  the  poor  to  escape  damnation, 
and  gave  even  to  the  grace  of  God  the  aspect  of  capricious 
concession  to  the  purchased  intercessions  of  the  Virgin  Mary. 
The  Christian  Rome  of  Borgia  had  come  to  deserve  every 
one  of  the  denunciations  which  had  been  hurled  at  the 
Pagan  Rome  of  Nero  by  the  Apocalyptic  seer.  The  name 
of  faith  was  prostituted  by  being  bestowed  on  the  abject 
acceptance  of  unproved  postulates  ;  the  name  of  morals  was 
conferred  upon  a  blind  obedience  to  human  traditions  ;  the 
name  of  grace  was  confined  to  the  mechanical  opeiation  ol 
perverted  sacraments  ;  the  name  of  truth  to  a  mass  of  in¬ 
fallible  falsehoods  ;  the  name  of  orthodoxy  to  the  passive 
repetition  of  traditional  ignorance.  The  results  were  fright¬ 
ful.  There  was  mental  coercion  and  moral  disorder.1  Even 
Bellarmine  acknowledges  that  some  years  before  the  Reforma¬ 
tion  “  there  was  no  strictness  in  spiritual  courts,  no  chastity 
in  manners,  no  reverence  in  presence  of  what  was  sacred, 
no  scholarship,  in  short  almost  no  religion.”  2 

The  necessary  deliverance  came  through  the  study  of  the 
Holv  Scriptures.  Long  before  the  days  of  Luthei  some,  at 


summon  a  Tope  as  witness.  Pope  Adrian  VI.,  at  the  Diet  of  Nurn  erto, 
which  was  convened  to  suppress  Lutheranism,  declared  through  the  Bishop  ot 
Fabriane  that  “  these  disorders  had  sprung  .  .  .  more  especia  lly  f  rom  the  sirs 
of  priests  and  prelates;  even  in  the  Holy  Chair  many  homb  e  crimes  uwe 
been  committed.” 

1  See  Hampden,  Bampton  Lectures ,  p.  38. 

2  See  Dorner,  i.  23-49. 


312 


Early  Reformers. 


least  of  the  few  who  studied  the  Bible  with  open  eyes,  had 
seen  how  different  was  primitive  Christianity  from  mediaeval 
Romanism,  how  deep  and  impassable  was  the  gulf  between 
the  Church  of  the  Apostles  and  the  Church  of  Alexander  VI. 
and  Leo  X.  There  had  been  Reformers  long  before  the 
Reformation.  Already  at  the  beginning  of  the  fourteenth 
century  Dante  had  said, 

“  -Ah,  Constantine,  of  how  much  ill  was  cause, 

Not  thy  conversion,  but  those  rich  domains 
That  the  first  wealthy  Pope  received  of  thee  !  ” 

but  it  was  not  till  the  sixteenth  that  men's  eyes  were  fully 
opened  to  the  falsehood  of  the  pretended  Donation  of 
Constantine  and  the  forgery  of  the  Decretals  of  Isidore.  The 
Mystics,  Gi  eek,  Latin,  and  German — had  tried  to  walk  in  the 
light  of  Eternity.  The  Waldenses  had  desired  to  make  the 
Bible  their  sole  authority.  Wiclif  had  translated  it,  and 
put  it  into  the  hands  of  the  poor.  Hus  had  inaugurated 
the  Bohemian  reformation.  The  Brethren  of  the  Common 
Life,  and  other  retired  bodies,  had  peacefully  studied  the 
Scriptures.1  John  Wessel  (f  1489),  in  his  Farrago  Rerum 
Theologicarum ,  had  so  far  anticipated  the  views  of  Luther  that 
Luther  expresses  his  surprise  at  the  identity  of  thought 
between  them.2  Similarly  in  1520  he  wrote,  “I  have  hitherto 
unknowingly  held  and  taught  all  J ohn  Hus’s  doctrines  ;  in  a 
like  unknowingness  has  John  Staupitz  taught  them;  briefly 
we  are  all  unconscious  Hussites.  Paul  and  Augustine  are 
Hussites  to  the  letter/' 3 

But  there  were  others,  who  on  different  grounds  from 
these  had  in  various  directions  contributed  powerfully  to  the 
Reformation,  and  had  helped  to  form  the  views  of  Scripture 
exegesis  on  which  it  so  largely  depended. 

1.  First  among  these  we  may  mention  Lorenzo  Valla 
(t  1465).  Valla,  a  Canon  of  St.  John  Lateran,  was  not  a 


2  ?<e?flT111ma7nn’  ^formers  before  the  Reformation.  •  Gieseler,  v.  172-177. 
v  3  .  i  1  118,(1  read  Wessel  first,  mine  adversaries  might  have  imagined  that  I 
Werlce  xiv  rl^W  1!ro,m  T)^®ssel'~arfeo  spiritus  utriusque  concordat 

borrowed  hxgely  WeSSd’ ln  ** 

'  Bnefe,  ed.  De  Wette,  p.  425  ;  Beard,  Hibbert  Lectures,  p.  30. 


Lorenzo  Valla. 


QIO 

olo 

man  of  deep  religions  feelings,  but  he  is  one  chief  link 
between  the  Renaissance  and  the  Reformation.  He  had  at 
least  learnt  from  the  revival  of  letters  that  Scripture  must  be 
interpreted  by  the  laws  of  grammar  and  the  laws  of  language. 
He  showed  his  courage  and  independence  in  many  ways.1  In 
days  when  scholasticism  was  still  dominant  he  wonders  that 
schoolmen  who  were  ignorant  of  Greek,  should  ever  have 
ventured  to  comment  on  St.  Paul.2  In  defiance  of  the  whole 
Dominican  order  he  contemptuously  rejects  the  monkish 
legend  that  St.  Paul  had  appeared  to  St.  Thomas  Aquinas 
and  said  that  no  one  had  so  well  understood  his  Epistles  ;  for 
“  why,”  he  asks,  “  did  not  St.  Paul  in  that  case  warn  him  of 
his  mistakes  ?  ”  3  Undaunted  by  the  Papal  power  he  showed 
the  spuriousness  of  the  Donation  of  Constantine,  in  a 
pamphlet  republished  in  1517  by  Ulric  von  Hutten.4  He 
expressed  his  doubts  as  to  the  genuineness  of  the  works 
attributed  to  Dionysius  the  Areopagite.0  He  denied  the 
fictions  about  the  composition  of  the  Apostles’  Creed. 
He  did  not  scruple  to  criticise  St.  Augustine 6  and  the 
Vulgate.7  Above  all  he  drew  up  Annotations  on  the  New 

1  No  one  who  has  looked  at  Valla’s  works,  especially  at  his  disgraceful  De 
Voluptate  et  Vero  Bono ,  can  have  the  least  sympathy  with  him  as  a  man  ;  but 
this  must  not  blind  us  to  his  real  services.  On  Valla  see  Oudin,  Script.  Bccl. 
p.  2439  ;  Fabric,  Bibl.  Lat.  vi.  282  ;  Meyer,  Gesch.  der  SehrifiterHar.  i.  155. 

2  “Quern  (Remigium)  et  item  Thomam  Aquinatem  .  .  .  ignaros  omnino 
linguae  Graecae,  mirorausos  commentari  Pauluin  Graece  loquentem  ”  ( Annott . 
in  1  Cor.  ix.  26). 

3  “  Peream  nisi  id  commenticium ,  nam  cur  cum  Paulies  non  admonuit 
erratorum  suorum,  cum  oh  alia  turn  de  ignorantia  linguae  graecae  ”  ( Annott .  in 
1  Cor.  ix.  13  ;  comp,  in  Acts  xiii.  9.) 

4  Dante  ( Infern .  xix.  115.  Parad.  xx.  55,  Dc  Monarch,  ii.  ad  fin.)  ;  Wiclif, 
( Trialog . ,  Tracts  and  Treatises,  ed.  Vaughan,  p.  17 4),. and  Ariosto  (Orl.  Furioso, 
xxviv.  st.  80)  alike  protested  against  the  effects  of  the  Donation  of  Constantine. 
Aeneas  Sylvius  (Pius  II.)  had  even  in  1443  expressed  doubts  of  its  authenticity 
(Pez,  Thcs.  Anecd.  iv.  316),  as  also  did  Bishop  Pecock  and  Cardinal  de  Cusa 
(Brown,  Fascic.  i.  57).  But  Valla  went  further.  See  Dollinger,  Fables  of  the 
Popes,  pp.  107-176.  After  Baronius  gave  up  the  “Donation”  no  one  had  a 
word  more  to  say. 

5  Annott.  in  Acts  xvii.  34.  Grocyn  after  beginning  to  lecture  on  the 
Celestial  Hierarchies  about  1500,  and  severely  censuring  Valla,  confessed  after 
a  few  weeks  that  he  had  come  round  to  Valla’s  opinion,  that  the  works  were 
spurious.  See  Erasm.  Annot.  in  Acts  xvii.  34  {ed.  1519). 

6  Annott.  in  John  xviii.  28. 

7  Annott.  in  Mark  x.  49,  Luke  ii.  14,  John  x.  29,  &c.  The  low  state  of 
critical  knowledge  led  him  into  frequent  errors,  e.g.  in  his  notes  on  Matt.  vi.  1 
and  John  xviii.  1.  But  his  remarks  helped  to  show  the  extreme  importance 
of  philology  and  criticism. 


314 


Faber  Stapulensis. 


Testament,  in  which,  though  they  have  little  religious  or 
spiritual  interest,  he  recognised  the  supreme  importance  of 
abandoning  erroneous  renderings  and  of  ascertaining  what  the 
Apostles  and  Evangelists  really  wrote  and  really  meant.1 
Though  Bellarmme  calls  him  “a  precursor  of  the  Lutherans  ” 
Valla  remained  to  the  last  a  Humanist.  He  escaped 
tie  Inquisition  by  a  cynical  conformity,  and  became  the 
secretary  of  Nicholas  V.,  who  thought  more  of  Ciceronian 
style  than  of  theologic  accuracy.  But  he  may  claim  the 
honour  of  being  one  of  the  founders  of  textual  criticism,2 
and  Erasmus  was  so  much  struck  with  his  Annotations,  of 
which  he  found  a  MS.  in  a  monastic  library  at  Brussels, 
that  he  republished  them  with  a  warm  eulogy  in  1505,  forty 
years  after  the  death  of  their  author.3 

2.  With  Valla  must  be  mentioned  Jacques  Le  Fevee 
D’Etaples,  usually  known  as  Faber  Stapulensis,  who  also 
helped  to  break  the  heavy  yoke  of  ecclesiastical  and  scholastic 
tradition.  Encouraged  by  the  example  of  Valla  he  made 
a  new  Latin  translation  of  St.  Paul’s  Epistles,  and  has  the 

high  honour  of  having  published  in  1523  the  first  French 
version  of  the  entire  Scriptures.4 

°\  Still  greater  were  the  services  of  Reuchlenv5  Regarded 
m  his  own  lifetime  as  being,  with  Erasmus,  one  of  the  two 
eyes  of  Europe,  he  may  fairly  claim  to  have  effected  for  the 
study  of  the  Old  Testament  even  more  than  Erasmus 
achieved  for  the  New.  With  his  eruditio  trilinguis  he  was 
legarded  as  a  new  St.  Jerome.  He  was  born  in  1455,  the 
year  that  Gutenberg  sent  forth  from  Mainz  the  first  printed 
book,  the  Mazarin  Bible ;  and  although  he  was  a  layman,  a 
lawyer,  an  ambassador,  a  Humanist,  he  had  learnt  the 
rudiments  of  Hebrew  from  John  Wessel  in  his  youth,  and 


k  ?iat  these„aye  “the  earliest  specimens  of  explanations 

tjon<  L  uginal  language  {Lit.  of  Europe,  i.  147)  requires  qualifica- 

( Eras m.°Ep c  i  i  f )  ^  ^  vctustis  atque  emendatis  Graecorum  excmplaribus  ” 

Hi1?1!  Corn1e|iusi  Aurotinus  called  Valla  “  eorvus  crocitansf  Erasmus 
said  that  he  ought  rather  to  have  called  him  suadae  medulla. 

5  y  13  an°nymous,  but  there  is  little  doubt  that  it  is  by  him. 

Luther  wrote,  Faisti  tu  sane  organum  consilii  Dei." 


Reuchlin. 


315 


devoted  himself  to  the  study  of  languages  with  the  express 
object  of  elucidating  the  Scriptures. 1  In  one  characteristic 
sentence  he  gives  us  the  secret  of  his  great  services :  “  Novum 
Testamentum  graece  lego,  Vetus  hebraice,  in  cujus  expositione 
mcdo  confidere  meo  guam  alterius  ingenio.  At  great  cost,  evei 
spending  upon  learning  what  he  had  gained  by  teaching,  he 
acquired  a  knowledge  of  Hebrew  from  Jacob  Jehiel  Loans, 
and  is  said  to  have  once  paid  ten  gold  pieces  to  a  Jew  for  the 
explanation  of  a  single  phrase.2  Although  his  Rudimenta 
Linguae  Hebraicae  was  preceded  by  the  imperfect  hook  of 
Pellican,  he  had  a  right  to  conclude  it  with  the  verse,  “  Exegi 
monumentum  aere  perennius .’  So  great  in  that  age  was  the 
ignorance  of  Hebrew,  that  he  had  to  begin  by  a  full  and 
emphatic  notice  that  Hebrew  is  read  from  right  to  left.  His 
grammar  was  mostly  derived  from  David  Qimchi,  but  in  the 
commentary  on  the  seven  penitential  psalms  he  also  consulted 
the  works  of  Rashi,  Ibn  Ezra,  Saadia,  Maimonides,  Levi  Ben 
Gerson,  and  the  Targums  of  Jonathan  and  Onkelos.  He 
frequently  corrects  the  Vulgate  in  favour  of  the  Hebraica 
Veritas.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  he  should  have  wasted  so 
much  time  over  the  delusions  of  Kabbalism, 5  and  this  had 
the  further  ill  effect  of  exposing  him  to  the  fury  of  the 
priests,  theologians,  Dominicans,  and  Inquisitors.  They  veie 
already  suspicious  of  one  who  studied  the  language  of  the 
Old  Testament,  which  they  stupidly  denounced  as  an  accursed 
tongue.  When  Reuchlin  lectured  on  it  at  Heidelberg  he  had 
to  do  so  secretly.  The  collision  with  Pfefferkorn  (  and  Hoog- 


1  Beard,  p.  43  ;  see  Geiger,  Johann  Reuchlin,  1871.  Chairs  for  Oriental 
languages,  with  a  view  to  missionary  work,  had  been  formed  m  loll,  but  till 

ReuchlinT  time  they  had  not  produced  much  fruit.  .  .  .„ 

2  “  Universal em  stipem  quain  discendo  impendi,  docendo  ycquism 
Praef.  ( ad  fratrem).  His  desire  to  find  the  literal  sense  is  emphasised  m  lus 

^  CCCLlt 2/b%CS , 

3  The  first  edition  was  published  at  Pforzheim  in  1506. 

4  When  reproved  for  doing  so  he  replied,  “  Quamquam  Hieronynum  veneror 
ut  angelum  et  Lyram  colo  ut  magistrum,  tamen  .  .  .  ventatem  adoro  ut 

l)eum  ”  (Praef.  Rudim.  Hebr.  lib.  iii.). 

5  Do,  Verbo  Mirifico,  1495;  J)e  Arte  Kabbahstica,  1515.  Erasmus  wrote 
to  the  Archbishop  of  Mainz,  “Cabbala  et  Thalmud,  quidquid  hoc  est,  meo 
animo  nunquam  arrisit”  (Ep.  477).  Luther  spoke  of  his  Jewish 

ti  Pfefferkorn,  an  apostate  Jew,  wanted  to  have  the  copies  of  the  1  a  I  mud 
searched  out  and  burnt.  The  Talmud  has  been  almost  as  much  persecuted  as 


316 


Erasmus. 


stiaten  embittered  Reuchlin’s  declining’  years,  which  he  might 
have  spent  so  happily  among  his  white  peacocks  in  the  peace¬ 
ful  retirement  of  Stuttgart.  But  this  quarrel  opened  men’s 
eyes  to  the  presumptuous  ignorance  of  a  clergy  who  still 
claimed  for  their  opinions  an  infallible  authority.  Even 
the  coarse  satire  of  the  Epistolae  Cfbscurorum  Virorum  em¬ 
phasised  the  general  conviction  that  the  coming  struggle 
between  the  Reformers  and  the  Papacy  was  a  struggle  of 
knowledge  against  ignorance,  of  light  against  darkness,  of 
fieedom  against  a  servility  which  was  at  once  degrading  and 
intolerable  to  the  awakening  conscience  of  mankind.1 

4.  But  more  than  any  man  except  Luther  it  was  Desiderius 
Erasmus  of  Rotterdam,  who  m  widening  the  knowledge  of 
Scripture  advanced  the  cause  of  the  Reformation.  In  the 
person  of  this  brilliant  humanist  and  admirable  theologian 
Gieece  rose  from  the  dead  with  the  New  Testament  in  her 
hand.’  There  is  no  one  whose  writings  show  a  more  distinct 
and  decided  emancipation  from  untenable  traditions.  His 
editio  princeps  of  the  New  Testament  (1516)  “formed  a 
gieat  epoch  in  the  history  of  Western  Christendom,  and 
was  a  gift  of  incalculable  value  to  the  Church.”  2  It  was 
to  it  that  the  English  martyr  Bilney  owed  his  conversion. 
Tyndale  and  Coverdale  used  it  as  well  as  Luther.  It  was 
from  Erasmus  that  Tyndale  borrowed  his  immortal  answer 
to  the  theologian  who  had  said,  “  We  had  better  be  without 
God’s  laws  than  the  Pope’s ;  ”  that  “  If  God  spare  my  life, 
eie  many  years  I  will  cause  the  boy  that  driveth  the 
plough  to  know  more  of  Scripture  than  thou  dost.”  For 


m  it  in  533  ;  it  was  burnt  in  1244  and  1288  : 

\ln  T,;  ^07  of  5  Pa?V Y  ?  I559  ’  PlUS  V-  in  1566  ^  Clement  VIII.  in 
V-  f  A  !307  Clement  V.  had  shown  greater  wisdom  by  founding  professor- 
+  nps  of  Oriental  languages  m  Paris,  Salamanca,  Bologna,  and  Oxford  in  order 
t0  leain  w£at  the  lalniud  really  was  {Constt.  dementis  V.in  Cone.  Viennensi, 
J  :,G  Y<  ^d/hnsaidthat  to  burn  the  book  was  a  mere  Bacchanten-aryu- 
nu  d.  On  brulait  le  Talmud  et  quelquefois  le  Juif  avec  le  Talmud  ”  (Viet 
le  01  ore,  Disc,  sur  VHist.  Lit.  de  France).  1 

s,tory’  1cuirrent>  and  by  no  means  impossible,  of  a  priest  who 
12Ufht  ^at  Greek  and  the  New  Testament  were  two  recent  heresies. 

•  nfeee  ^  psbeott.  Hist,  of  Eng.  Bible ,  pp.  26,  140,  203-205.  By  an  order 
m  Council  in  154/,  every  English  parish  church  was  bound  to  hive  a  copy 

vi.  439 ^araphra*es  <Hallain>  LiL  °f  Zur.  i.  373.;  Milman,  Lot.  Christianity, 


317 


Services  of  Erasmus. 

/ 

in  direct  opposition  to  tlie  prevailing  hierarchical  sentiment, 
in  an  age  when  even  Luther  could  grow  up  to  the  age  of 
twenty-six  without  having  read  a  complete  Bible,  Erasmus 
had  proclaimed  the  privilege  of  even  the  unlearned  to  lead 
for  themselves  the  messages  of  a  Gospel  which  was  pro¬ 
claimed  to  Scythians,  and  slaves,  and  peasants,  and  women, 
no  less  than  to  Greeks  and  kings. 1  He  had  assailed 
immemorial  custom  in  deploring  the  fact  that  men  and 
women  chattered  like  parrots  the  Psalms  and  prayers  which 
they  did  not  understand.”  He  had  expressed  the  wish  to 
see  Christ  honoured  in  all  languages,  to  hear  the  Psalms  sung 
by  the  labourer  at  the  plough,  and  the  Gospel  read  to  pool 
women  as  they  sat  spinning  at  the  wheel.  “  I  should  prefer, 
he  said,  “  to  hear  young  maidens  talking  about  Christ  than 
some  who  in  the  opinion  of  the  vulgar  are  consummate 
Rabbis  ” ;  and  he  could  claim  it  as  the  glorious  result  of  his 
labours  that  “  the  veil  of  the  Temple  has  now  been  rent  in 
twain,  and  it  is  no  longer  a  single  High  Priest  who  can  entei 
into  the  Holy  of  Holies.”  2 

Erasmus  had  some  right,  then,  to  reject  the  taunt  of 
Stunica,  EvccsTfius  luthcvissctt ,  and  to  answer  that  in  truth 
Lutherus  erasmissat.  The  fame  of  his  ability,  the  brilliancy 
of  his  wit,  the  force  of  his  learning,  the  vivacity  and 
manliness  of  his  Latin  style,  the  mordant  humour  of  Ins 
attacks  upon  a  purblind  yet  autocratic  theology,  lenoered  the 
subsequent  work  of  Luther  more  easy,  and  paved  the  way  for 
the  wide  and  immediate  acceptance  of  his  German  Bible. 
Though  Erasmus  edited  many  of  the  Fathers  3  he  helped  to 
break  down  the  extravagant  belief  in  their  authority.  He 
freely  and  forcibly  exposes  the  mistakes  and  ignorance  of  the 


1  Proof,  in  Paraphr.  Matth.  How  rapidly  and  thoroughly  his  hopes  were, 
fulfilled  may  he  seen  by  the  complaint  of  Cochlaeus  (De  Act.  et  Script.  M. 
Lutlicri,  ad  ann.  1522),  that  even  cobblers  and  women,  quilibet  idiotae,  knew 
the  New  Testament  by  heart,  and  carried  it  in  their  pockets. 

2  The  Complutensian  Polyglot  was  printed  in  1514,  but  not  published  till 
I50O  The  second  edition  of  Erasmus’s  New  Testament  was  published  111 
1518*  In  later  editions  (1522,  1527,  1535)  he  consulted  the  Complutensian. 

3  I renaeus, Cyprian,  Hilary,  Ambrose,  Jerome,  Augustine,  Basil,  Chrysostom 

and  others. 


318 


Services  of  Erasmus. 

Schoolmen.1  The  Dominicans  would  allow  no  dissent  from 
the  decisions  of  Thomas  Aquinas  or  Hugo  of  St.  Cher ;  the 
Franciscans  gave  implicit  allegiance  to  Nicolas  of  Lyra ;  the 
Augustinians  were  indignant  if  any  man  departed  a  hairs- 
breadth  from  the  interpretation  of  St.  Augustine.  Erasmus 
does  not  hesitate  to  point  out  that  Peter  Lombard 2  and 
Aquinas  3  made  serious  mistakes  ;  that  Hugo  of  St.  Cher  was 
full  of  grotesque  misinterpretations;4  that  even  Augustine 
had  left  much  to  be  done,  and  that  no  great  teacher  had  ever 
claimed  the  authority  which  was  then  accorded  to  writings 
which  were  but  human  and  full  of  glaring  imperfections. 5 
Nor  is  this  all.  He  expressly  repudiates  the  exegetic  in¬ 
fallibility  not  only  of  the  Pope  but  even  of  Churches.6  He 
never  hesitates  to  reject  a  so-called  “  Scripture  proof”  when 
it  seemed  to  him  to  be  misapplied  or  untenable, 7 8  nor  to 
retain  a  Scripture  phrase  even  though  it  might  seem  liable 
to  abuse.  His  philological  merits  were  of  a  high  order,  and 
his  notes  on  many  of  the  rarer  words  and  phrases  in  the 
Greek  Testament,  may  still  be  read  with  advantage.  He  sets 
aside  theological  quibbles  and  scholastic  subtleties  with  the 
brief  remark  qwclg  suprct  nos  nihil  ctd  nos ,  and  his  comments 
on  “  the  commandments  of  men,”  on  sacerdotal  Pharisaism, 
on  marriage  dispensations,  on  the  spirituality  of  true  religion, 

1  1  ope  expresses  the  popular  view  about  Erasmus  in  the  lines, 

“At  length  Erasmus,  that  great  injured  name, 

(The  glory  of  the  Priesthood  and  the  shame, ) 

Stemmed  the  wild  torrent  of  a  barbarous  age 
And  drove  the  holy  Vandals  off  the  stage.” 

2  See  his  note  on  the  pudendus  lapsus  of  the  Master  of  the  Sentences 
(irapadeiyuaTLcai  —  rein  habere  cum  sponsa)  in  Matt.  i.  19  (see  his  notes  on  Rom 
i.  4  ;  1  Cor.  i.  10  ;  1  Cor.  vii.  42  ;  1  Tim.  ii.  21,  v.  18,  &c.). 

3  He  blames  the  confidence  with  which  Aquinas  “  spoke  of  things  which 
he  did  not  understand”  (see  notes  on  1  Cor.  xiv.  11  ;  Heb.  xi.  37)/  Colet’s 
disappioval  joined  to  study  of  the  Surnma  weakened  Erasmuses  original 
estimate  of  Aquinas.  See  Seebohm,  Oxf.  Reformers ,  p.  110. 

See  his  notes  on  Matt.  v.  16,  xix.  12  ;  John  v.  2  :  Acts  xxvii.  12  •  1  Tim 
i.  18  ;  2  Tim.  iii.  2  ;  Tit.  i.  7  ;  1  Pet.  ii.  24. 

Annott.  in  Luke  ii.  35,  1  Tim.  i.  7.  On  John  v.  2,  he  says,  “Eatenus 
debetur  sanctis  viris  reverentia,  ut  siquid  errarint,  nam  errant  et  sancti  citra 
personae  contumeliam  veritati  patrocinemur.  ” 

6  Annott  in  1  Cor.  vii.  39  ;  2  Cor.  x.  8  ;  1  Tim.  i.  7. 

7  See  on  Matt.  ii.  5  ;  Rom.  v.  12  ;  Phil.  ii.  6  ;  1  Tim.  i.  17  ;  1  John  v  7  90 

8  See  his  note  on  Matt.  xxiv.  36. 


I 


His  Courage. 


319 


on  monkish  divisions,  on  religious  mendicancy,  and  on  the 
non-existence  of  any  earthly  infallibility,  were  all  contribu¬ 
tions  to  the  emancipation  of  the  Church  from  the  tyrannous 
burdens  and  false  traditions  of  the  days  in  which  his  lot 
was  cast. 

In  all  this  Erasmus  showed  a  courage  which,  though  it 
cost  something  in  his  as  in  every  age,  is  often  the  best  service 
which  any  man  can  render  to  his  own  generation.  It  has 
been  the  fashion  to  sneer  at  his  supposed  timidity  in  not 
throwing  himself  heart  and  soul  into  the  work  of  Luther.1 
But  the  natures  of  Luther  and  Erasmus  were  antipathetic. 
Erasmus  felt  a  constitutional  dislike  of  Luther’s  methods,  as 
well  as  a  theological  repulsion  from  many  of  his  opinions.2 
Personally  he  was  shocked  by  Luther’s  roughness ;  intel¬ 
lectually  he  could  attach  no  meaning  to  his  chief  watchword. 
Doubtless  he  was  not  wholly  free  from  the  feeling  of  self- 
interest  and  the  desire  to  avoid  conflict.  Luther  charged 
him  with  wishing  to  walk  upon  eggs  without  crushing  them, 
and  among  glasses  without  breaking  them.  But  he  never 
allowed  these  weaknesses  to  show  themselves  in  the  region  of 
his  most  sincere  convictions.  It  must  not  be  forgotten  that 
he  willingly  braved  the  intense  hatred  of  a  powerful  and  un¬ 
scrupulous  majority.  Many  a  sermon  was  directed  against 
him  in  his  lifetime  by  enraged  obscurantists,  who,  as  is 
common  with  that  class,  had  not  even  read  the  books  which 
they  so  vehemently  denounced.3  On  one  occasion,  in  his 
presence,  a  Carmelite  preacher,  in  the  violet  hood  and  cap  of 
a  doctor,  charged  him  with  two  out  of  the  three  sins  against 
the  Holy  Ghost ;  namely,  presumption,  for  having  ventured  to 
correct  the  Magnificat  and  the  Lord’s  Prayer; — and  the  impugn¬ 
ing  of  recognised  truth,  because,  after  hearing  two  preachers 

1  He  bravely  took  Luther’s  part  for  some  time  {Ep.  513),  as  even  Luther 
admitted  (De  Wette,  i.  241,  396.)  Erasmus  urged  his  schoolfellow  Pope 
Adrian  VI.  to  mildness  and  concessions,  and  he  says,  “  Romae  me  faciunt 
Lutheranum,”  Ep.  667. 

2  “  Videor  mihi  fere  omnia  docuisse  quae  docet  Lutherus,  nisi  quod  non  tarn 
atrociter,  quodque  abstinui  et  quibusdam  aenigmatibus  et  parodoxis.” 
Erasmus  to  Zwingli  (Mil man,  Essays,  p.  127). 

3  See  Ep.  417  (ad  Campegium),  ad.  1519. 


His  Paraphrases . 


320 

on  the  same  day,  he  had  remarked  that  neither  of  them 
understood  his  subject.1 2  His  Colloquies  were  burnt  in  Spain 
and  put  on  the  Index  at  Rome.  He  was  censured  by  the 
Theological  Faculty  of  Paris,  and  among  the  many  who 
attacked  him  was  Caranza,  who  published  a  book  called,  The 
Blasphemies  and  Impieties  of  Erasmus? 

Erasmus  may  be  regarded  as  the  chief  founder  of  modern 
textual  and  Biblical  criticism.  He  must  always  hold  an 
honoured  place  among  the  interpreters  of  Scripture.  In  his 
Paraphrases,  which  Luther  bitterly  called  Baraphroneses,  he 
endeavoured,  he  says,  “to  supply  gaps,  to  soften  the  abrupt, 
to  arrange  the  confused,  to  simplify  the  involved,  to  untie  the 
knotty,  to  throw  light  on  the  obscure,  to  give  the  Roman 
franchise  to  Hebraisms  ...  to  say  the  same  things  though 
in  another  way/’  It  was  his  aim,  above  all,  to  brighten  the 
meaning  of  words  which  had  been  partly  deadened  by 
familiarity,  partly  perverted  by  mistaken  applications.3  In 
his  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament,  he  was  one  of  the  first  to 
apply  critical  principles,  and  to  convince  the  Church  of  the 
now  admitted  spuriousness  of  the  verse  about  the  three 
heavenly  witnesses.4  He  pointed  out  the  strange  textual 
phenomena  of  the  passage  about  the  woman  taken  in  adultery. 
In  his  Annotations  he  described  the  general  characteristics 
of  Hellenistic  Greek,  and  many  of  the  peculiarities  which 
mark  the  style  of  St.  Paul.  He  did  not  deny  the  possibility 
of  trivial  errors  and  discrepancies  in  the  sacred  writers.5  He 
usefully  illustrates  the  form  into  which  our  Lord  sometimes 
threw  His  teaching.  He  did  not  confuse  inspiration  with 

1  Ep.  vi.  p.  344,  and  xxii.  Ep.  31  ;  Rosenimiller,  v.  432. 

2  The  letter  of  Dorpius  to  Erasmus,  in  which  he  argues  that  the  Vulgate 
must  be  free  from  error  because  the  Church  had  accepted  it,  is  a  specimen  of 
common  a  priori  reasoning.  Erasmus  in  his  reply  said,  “  You  follow  in  the 
steps  of  those  vulgar  divines  who  attribute  ecclesiastical  authority  to  whatever 
creeps  into  general  use.”  Lee,  afterwards  Archbishop  of  York,  was  chastised  by 
Sir  T.  More  as  a  “  monachulus  et  obscurus  et  indoctus  ”  for  his  attack  on 
Erasmus. 

3  Dedicat.  Paraphr.  in  Ep.  ad  Bom.  Herder  said  that  his  Paraphrases  were 
worth  their  weight  in  gold.  Tischendorf,  Lachmann,  and  Tregelles  do  justice 
to  his  merits. 

4  1  John  y.  7. 

5  Annott.  in  Luke  xxii.  36  ;  John  ii.  19,  20,  &c. 


His  Independence. 


321 


supernatural  infallibility  in  expressions  and  details.1  “  Christ 
alone/’  he  said,  “is  called  the  Truth.  He  alone  was  free  from 
all  error.”  He  allowed  for  the  human  element  in  Scripture. 
His  views  on  the  authorship  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
on  St.  James,  and  on  the  Apocalypse,  have  found  wide 
acceptance  among  recent  scholars.  In  the  matter  of  allegory 
he  vacillates.  It  is  not  indeed  often  that  he  countenances  it 
by  his  example,2  but  he  made  the  two  unfortunate  observations, 
that  without  a  mystic  sense  the  Book  of  Kings  would  be  no 
more  profitable  than  Livy,3  and,  “  give  chief  attention  to  those 
expositors  who  depart  as  widely  as  possible  from  the  letter.” 
But  we  can  best  estimate  the  advance  he  made  when  we 
recall  that  in  his  day  there  were  thousands  of  theologians 
who  did  not  know  whether  the  Apostles  wrote  in  Hebrew,  in 
Greek,  or  in  Latin ;  and  when,  as  Bellarmine  says,  “  The  better 
grammarian  a  man  was,  the  worse  theologian  was  he  con¬ 
sidered  to  be.”  4 * 6  Bobert  Stephens,  in  his  Apologia ,  quotes  the 
remark  of  a  Professor  of  the  Sorbonne,  who,  in  a  declamation 
against  Scripture  during  the  course  of  a  public  lecture,  ex¬ 
claimed,  “  By  heavens  !  I  was  more  than  fifty  years  old  before 
I  knew  what  the  New  Testament  was.”  The  custom  of  these 
theologians  was,  he  adds,  “  to  draw  their  theology  not  from 
the  sacred  codex  of  the  oracles  of  God,  but  from  their  Master 

1  Passus  est  errare  suos  Christus  etiam  post  acceptum  Paraeletum  sed  non 
usque  ad  fidei  periculum.  See  Drummond,  Erasmus ,  i.  307.  Compare  the 
remark  in  his  Ratio  Verae  Theologiae,  and  on  Colet’s  views,  in  Opp.  iii.  459. 

2  Yet  he  allegorises  the  raising  of  Jairus’  daughter.  Eceles.  ed.  1730,  pp.  70, 
sqq.  We  may  be  proud  of  the  influence  of  Colet  over  Erasmus. 

3  EncUrid.  Mil.  Christ,  ed.  1523,  leaf  g.  2.  In  this  passage  the  “  mysterium 
in  literis  omnibus”  is  insisted  on.  See  too  Be  Copia  rerum  (ed.  1545,  p.  165)  ; 
Be  tedio  et  pavore  Christi  (ed.  1515,  p.  128)  ;  Praef.  in  Annott.  (ed.  1535)  ; 
Ennarratio  in  Ps.  lxxxvi.  (ed.  1652,  p.  19).  Yet  he  ridicules  the  abuse  of 
allegory  in  Encom.  Moriae  and  Instit.  Principis  Christiani  (ed.  1628,  p.  121). 
Por  these  references  I  am  indebted  to  the  kindness  of  the  Rev.  J.  H. 
Lupton. 

4  Bellarmine,  Be  Rom.  Pontif.  iv.  12.  Melanchthon  says,  “  Itali  dicunt 

‘  Bonus  est  grammaticus  ;  ergo  est  kaereticus  ( Postill .  iii.  660).  Erasmus 
has  excellent  philological  notes  on  Acts  i.  4  ;  Rom.  v.  12,  ix.  5  ;  Phil.  ii. 

6  ;  Col.  ii.  18,  &c.,  and  his  linguistic  attainments  were  of  a  high  order,  though 
Lee  made  the  somewhat  cheap  remark,  that  he  could  point  out  300  errors  in 
his  New  Testament.  Luther,  who  exceedingly  disliked  Erasmus  as  a  theo¬ 
logian,  and  even  used  unbecoming  language  about  him,  stigmatising  him  as 
“a  foe  to  all  religion  and  a  thorough  sham,”  yet  estimated  him  highly  as  a 
grammarian  [Ep.  ad  Spalat.  1518  ;  Briefe ,  iv.  507  ;  Tischreden,  ii.  402,  419). 

Y 


o 

O 


22 


A  Pioneer. 


of  the  Sentences,  the  sophist  Aristotle,  and  the  Mahometan 
Averroes.”  1 


The  woik  then  which  Erasmus  achieved,  and  achieved  with 
biilliant  ability  and  no  mean  courage,  was  the  work  of  a 
pioneer.  He  had  no  desire  to  break  wholly  with  the  past. 
He  was  a  man  of  cosmojiolitan  sympathies  ;  a  theologian,  yet 
the  prince  of  Humanists;  a  pitiless  exposer  of  religious 
abuses,  yet  an  ally  of  Popes  and  Cardinals  ;  an  editor  of  the 
Fathers,  yet  a  friend  of  those  who  overthrew  their  dictator¬ 
ship  ;  a  Biblical  critic,  yet  the  author  of  the  Colloquies,  and 
the  Encomium  Moriae.  u  Erasmus  est  homo  pro  se”  is  the 
definition  given  of  him  in  the  Epistolae  obscurorum  virorum. 

Words  without  deeds/’  “  Verba  non  res ”  was  Luthers  severe 
judgment  of  him.  But  “  words  ”  are  often  the  most  powerful 
of  deeds,  and  Erasmus  Avas  fully  entitled  to  the  praise 
that  he  had  made  the  path  easy  for  all  who  followed  him. 

AVe  by  oui  diligence,  he  says,  “  have  smoothed  a  road  which 
previously  was  rugged  and  troublesome,  but  in  which  hence¬ 
forth  great  theologians  may  ride  more  easily  with  steeds  and 
chariots.  We  have  levelled  the  soil  of  the  arena,  in  which, 
with  fewer  obstacles,  they  may  now  display  those  splendid 
processions  of  their  wisdom.  We  have  cleansed  with  harrows 
the  fallow  land  which  heretofore  was  impeded  with  briars  and 
burs.  We  have  swept  away  the  impediments,  and  opened  a 
field  wheiein  they  who  may  hereafter  wish  to  explain  the 
secrets  of  Scripture  may  either  play  together  with  greater 
freedom,  or  join  battle  with  more  convenience.” 

5.  God  endows  His  chosen  instruments  with  such  gifts  as 
they  specially  need.  It  required  a  personality  far  different 
from  that  of  Erasmus  to  bring  about  that  emancipation  of 
Christendom  fiom  sacerdotal  tyranny  and  false  exegesis  which ' 
Avas  the  essence  of  the  Reformation.2  Revolutions  have 


2  similar  remarks  quoted  in  Seebohm,  Oxford  Reformers,  ch.  ii. 

-  Erasmus  said,  “Ego  peperi  ovum  gallinaceum,  Lutherus  exclusit  pullum 
longe  dwsimilhmuw.  (. Epp .  iii.  p.  840)  ;  “  Videor  mihi  fere  omnia  docuisse 
quio  docet  Lutherus  (Letter  to  Zwingli) ;  “  Quid  mihi  cum  causa  Capnionis  et 
Lutheri ,  (Bp.  477)  ;  see  Beard,  Bibbert  Lectures,  p.  69.  In  1520  Erasmus 
\\ rites  to  Leo  A.,  Lutherum  non  novi,  nec  libros  illius  umquam  legi,  nisi 
forte  decern  aut  duodecim  pagellas,  easque  captim.  ”  Could  this  be  true  ? 


i 


Luther. 


323 


usually  been  wrought  by  men  whose  sympathies  were  all  the 
more  intense  and  concentrated  from  their  very  narrowness,  not 
by  men  of  delicate  refinement  and  many-sided  powers  of 
appreciation.  The  genius  of  Erasmus,  and  the  learning  of 
Melanchthon  would  have  produced  but  small  results  without 
the  Titanic  force  of  Luther,  the  sovereign  good  sense  of 
Zwingli,  the  remorseless  logic  of  Calvin ; — and  of  these  three 
the  greatest  was  Martin  Luther. 

Luther  was  the  “intensified  self”  of  the  German  nation.1 
This  man  it  is  a  recent  fashion  in  the  Church  of  England 
to  revile— and  would  to  God  that  they  who  revile  him  would 
render  to  mankind  but  one  of  the  very  least  of  his  many 
services !  He  gave  to  the  Germans  their  Bible ;  he  gave  them 
the  perfection  of  their  language ;  he  gave  them  the  sense  of 
their  unity ;  he  gave  them  the  conviction  of  their  freedom 
before  God ;  he  gave  them  the  prayers  which  rise  night  and 
morning  from  thousands  of  hearts ;  he  gave  them  the  burning 
hymns,  rich  in  essential  truth,  and  set  to  mighty  music,  which 
are  still  daily  poured  forth  by  millions  of  voices ;  he  gave 
them  the  example  of  a  family  life,  pure,  simple,  and  humbly 
dependent  upon  God.  “  To  have  lifted  the  load  of  sin  from 
man}"  consciences — to  have  reconciled  nature  and  duty,  purity 
and  passion — to  have  made  woman  once  more  the  faithful 
helpmeet  of  God’s  servants  as  of  other  men — to  have  been  the 
founder  of  countless  sweet  and  peaceful  homes — is  no  small 
part  of  Luther’s  true  glory.”  But  his  highest  glory— the 
glory  he  valued  most — was  to  have  fulfilled  the  vow  ot  the 
Doctorate — Juro  me  veritatem  evangelicam  fro  mrili  defen- 
surum — and  to  have  given  to  the  people  whom  he  loved  an 
open  Bible  which  could  be  closed  no  more. 

And  he  not  only  gave  them  the  open  Bible,  but  taught 
them  and  all  the  world  how  best  it  might  be  interpreted. 
His  Commentary  on  the  Galatians  was  his  only  complete  and 
continuous  contribution  to  the  exegesis  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment,2*  yet  that  single  work  would  have  proved  to  be  a 

1  See  Dellinger,  Kirchc  und  Kirchenthum,  386  ;  Dorner,  Prot.  Ihcol.  i.  81-1-5. 

-  1519.  Re'edited  in  1524,  and  1535.  Luther  says  “  F.s  ist  Dolmetschen 
nicht  einer  jeglichen  Kunst ;  es  gehort  dazu  ein  recht  from,  treu,  tieisig, 

Y  2 


324 


Four  Stages. 


blessing  to  millions,  had  it  produced  no  other  effect  than  to 
lead  (as  it  did)  to  the  enlightenment  of  John  Bunyan  and  John 
Wesley.  But  Luthers  German  Bible  is  more  than  a  trans¬ 
lation.  It  forms  also  an  admirable  commentary,1  and  in 
his  Prefaces  and  in  all  his  other  works  he  enunciated  rules  to 
which  the  complete  revolution  of  exegetic  methods  in  modern 
times  has  been  principally  due. 

There  are  four  well  -  marked  stages  of  his  religious 
advance — 

1.  Till  the  age  of  twenty-six  (a.d.  1508)  he  studied 
scholasticism,  and  the  Sententiarii.  He  could  almost  repeat 
Gabriel  Biel  and  Peter  of  Alliacum  by  heart  and  was  an 
eager  student  of  Occam ; 2  but  he  knew  no  Greek  and  no 
Hebrew,  and  had  read  no  more  of  the  Bible  than  the 
Church  lessons.3  His  incessant  study  of  the  Vulgate,  which 
he  found  in  the  library  of  his  monastery  at  Erfurt,  caused  him 
even  then  to  be  suspected  of  heterodoxy;  but  he  was  still 
imprisoned  in  the  bonds  of  ecclesiastical  tradition,  was 
content  with  the  secondhand  fancies  of  the  G-lossa  Ordinaria , 
and  had  only  begun  to  grasp  the  importance  of  the  verse 
which  influenced  his  life,  “  The  just  shall  live  by  faith!1 

2.  For  ten  years  more  (1509-1517),  though  he  lectured  on 

furchtsam,  christlich,  gelehrt,  erfahren,  geiibt  Herz”  ( Sensdchr .  vom 
Dolmetschen). 

1  The  cases  in  which  he  shewed  dogmatic  bias  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  1  ;  Ps.  lxviii. 
12,  19  ;  Rom.  v.  28  {allein  durch  den  Glauben),  Eph.  iv.  16  ( und  das  alles )  are 
honourably  few  (see  Reuss,  Gesch.  d.  N.T.  p.  449).  Luther,  born  1483; 
Theses,  1517  ;  Leipzig  discussion,  1519  ;  excommunicated,  1520  ;  Diet  of 
"Worms,  1521  ;  returns  to  Wittenberg  from  Wartburg,  1522  ;  Peasants’  War, 
1525;  marriage,  1525;  Augsburg  confession,  1530;  Articles  of  Smalcald, 
1537  ;  death,  1546. 

2  “  Diu  multumque  legit  scripta  Occam.’-  Melanchthon,  Vit.  Luth.  p.  7. 
Even  at  this  period,  however,  Martin  of  Mellerstadt  prophesied  that  Luther 
would  alter  the  then  common  studies,  id.  p.  11  ;  Gieseler,  v.  220. 

3  See  Jurgens,  Luther's  Leben,  i.  487.  “Yon  dreissig  Jahren  war  die  Bibel 
unbekannt.  .  .  Da  ich  zwanzig  Jahr  alt  ivar  hatte  ich  noch  Jccine  geschcn. 
Ich  meinete  es  warenkeine  Evangelia  noch  Episteln  mehr  denn  die  in  den  Pos¬ 
tilion  sind.  Endlich  fand  ich  in  der  Liberei  in  Erfurt  eine  Bibel,  die  las  ich 
oft  mit  grosser  Verwunderung  Dr.  Staupitzen.”  Tischreden,  iii.  229.  See  too 
Mathesius,  Leben  d.  M.  Luther  Erste  Pred.  p.  6.  In  spite  of  what  Dr.  Maitland 
says  ( Dark  Ages ,  pp.  468-508),  it  is  clear  from  the  decree  of  Charles  Y.  in  the 
Netherlands  that  the  common  reading  of  the  Bible  was  regarded  as  a  crime 
which  deserved  death  by  burning.  And  Carlstadt  tells  us  that  he  had  been  a 
Doctor  of  Divinity  for  eight  years  before  he  read  the  whole  New  Testament. 
See  the  anecdotes  of  Archbishop  Albert  in  Sixt.  of  Amama  ( Antibarb .  Bibl. 
ii.  7)  and  of  Linacre  in  Balaeus,  Cent.  8. 


His  Growth. 


325 


the  Bible  at  Wittenberg  in  a  practical  way,  and  bad  aban¬ 
doned  scholasticism,  be  was  still  partly  content  with  the 
Vulgate,  the  Fathers,  and  the  fourfold  sense.1 

3.  The  next  four  years  (1518-1521)  were  marked  by  a 
great  advance.2  He  began  to  study  Hebrew  and  Greek,  to 
draw  from  bis  own  rich  spiritual  experiences,  and  to  depend 
less  and  less  on  the  Fathers.  The  discovery  that  poenitentia 
was  the  equivalent  of  fierdvota,  and  meant  something  much 
more  than,  and  very  different  from  penance,  brought  home  to 
him  with  a  tumult  of  joy  and  conviction  the  indispensable 
necessity  of  reverting  to  the  original  languages  of  Sciipture. 
He  began  to  understand  the  extent  to  which  words  often 
repeated  tend  to  ossify  the  organs  of  intelligence.  His 
comments  during  this  period  were  popular  and  practical, 
with  the  one  aim  of  bringing  Scripture  home  to  the  hearts 
and  consciences  of  men.4 

4.  It  was  only  in  his  fourth  stage  that  he  gained  a  clear 
grasp  of  the  principles  which  through  all  the  Reformed 
and  Lutheran  Churches  have  thenceforth  been  steadily 
recognised  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture.5 

What  are  those  principles  ? 

i.  First  among  them  was  the  supreme  and  final  authority 
of  Scripture  itself,  apart  from  all  ecclesiastical  authority 
or  interference.  This  was  with  Luther  a  Hauptfunda- 


1  See  JVerke,  xxxv.  24  (Erlang.).  The  Erfurt  monks  told  him  that  Scrip¬ 
ture  was  an  obscure  confused  mass,  and  that  he  should  go  to  I  athers  and 
Schoolmen  ( Tischrcden ,  lxxii.  108,  Erlang.).  He  became  a  Doctor  m  1512. 
In  1516,  he  wrote  to  J.  Lange,  “  Pars  crucis  meae  vel  maxima  est  quod  vulere 
cogor  fratrum  ingenia  ‘in  istis  coenis *  (Aristotle,  &c.)  vitarn  agere  et  operarn 
perdere.”  In  his  theses  in  defence  .of  Augustmianism  (151  <)  the  41st  was 
“  Totajere  Aristotelis  ethica  pessima  graticie  inimica.” 

2  Luthers  conference  with  Cardinal  Cajetan  took  place  m  lol8.  The  liber¬ 
ality  of  Cajetan  as  a  commentator,  his  preference  of  the  literal  sense,  his  tree 
admission  of  the  defects  of  the  Vulgate,  &c. ,  may  have  been  due  m  part  to  the 
influence  of  Reformation  principles.  See  "VV eisziicker  in  Herzog. 

*  Brief f,  i.  116  (ed.  De  Wette).  Up  to  that  time  he  says  that  he  had  dis¬ 
liked  Nicolas  of  Lyra,  because  of  his  attention  to  the  literal  sense  ;  “  sed  nunc 
hanc  ipsam  ob  commendationem  omnibus  fere  Scripturae  mterpretibus  eum 

antepono.”  Opp.  JSxeget.  Lot.  ii.  320.  _  .  11 

4  To  this  period  belong  his  Opcrationes  in  Psahnos,  the  first  scientifically 

exegetic  book  of  the  Reformation.”  .  ,  ....  ,  ,i 

5  He  began  to  translate  the  N.T.  in  1521,  using  Erasmus  s  edition  and  the 
Vulgate  (Brief 'c,  ii.  123-176). ^  His  invaluable  Prefaces  may  be  read  in  the  mil. 
vol.  of  his  works  (ed.  Erlangen). 


326  Supremacy  of  Scripture. 

ment  which  he  refused  even  to  discuss,  because  it  was 
theoretically  admitted  even  by  his  opponents.  It  was  in 
his  controversy  with  Eck,  in  1519,  that  he  was  first  led  to 
reject  as  fallible  the  authority  of  councils,  and  to  declare 
that  “  a  layman  who  has  Scripture  is  more  than  Pope  or 
council  without  it.”  He  learnt  to  feel  the  utmost  scorn  for 
current  glosses.  “  When  Papists  quote  the  Scriptures,”  he 
says,  “  it  is  in  this  style.  £  Ye  are  the  salt  of  the  earth i.e. 
‘Ye  are  Priests/  ‘ Praise  God  in  His  saints’  i.e.  ‘The  Pope 
has  the  power  of  canonisation.’  ”  Vincentius  of  Lerins  had 
laid  down  the  rule  that  interpretation  was  to  follow  the 
lines  of  Church  tradition.1  Luther,  on  the  other  hand, 
maintained  that  “the  Church  is  the  creature  of  the  Gospel, 
incomparably  inferior  to  the  Gospel.”  “  The  Church  cannot 
create  articles  of  faith ;  she  can  only  recognise  and  confess 
them  as  a  slave  does  the  seal  of  his  lord.”  “  The  censure  of 
the  Church  will  not  separate  me  from  the  Church,  if  truth 
joins  me  to  the'  Church.”  “The  Pythagorean  ipse  dixit  is 
not  to  he  tolerated  in  the  Church.”  “  Let  us  not  heap 
to  ourselves  Fathers,  Councils,  Doctors,  Decretals,  and  the 
slough  of  human  traditions  and  opinions.”  Thus  Luther 
refused  to  allow  the  Pope — as  in  his  rough  way  he  expressed 
it — “  to  sit  upon  the  eggs,  and  be  our  idol.”  2  He  recognised 
the  truth  that  “  to  set  forth  the  Church  as  the  way  to  Christ, 
instead  of  setting  forth  Christ  as  the  way  to  the  Church,  is 
the  fountain  of  unnumbered  errors.”  “  Eeclesia  non  faeit 
Verbnm  sed  fit  Verio  ” 

1  Yinc.  Ler.  Commonitor,  Erp.  2;  “  Interpretations  linea  secundicm  ecclesias - 

lid  et  catholici  sensus  normam  dirigatur.”  The  rule  was  formally  reaffirmed 
by  the  Council  of  Trent  ( Sess .  iv.),  and  had  been  again  and  again  repeated 
from  the  days  of  lrenaeus,  Tertullian  and  Cyprian  downwards.  Comp.  Bel- 
larmine,  De  Verb.  Dei,  iii.  3.  “  Hie  in  genere  dicimus  judicem  veri  sensus 

Scripturaeet  omnium  controversiarum  ecclesiam  esse,  id  est  Pontificem.”  The 
rule,  however  great  its  vitality,  however  high  the  authorities  which  may  be 
quoted  in  its  favour,  resembles  the  assertion  that  no  sidereal  phenomena  must 
ever  henceforth  be  allowed  to  interfere  with  the  laws  of  Kepler  and  Newton, 
if  there  be  one  truth  which  History  has  demonstrated  more  decisively  than 
another  it  is  that  no  Church,  and  no  combination  of  Churches,  has  ever 
possessed  the  attribute  of  exegetic  infallibility. 

2  See  Fabricius,  Loci  Commun.  M.  Lutheri,  i.  120.  Kostlin,  Luther’s  Thcologie, 
i.  272-278.  Bellarmine  said,  “  Summum  judicium  esse  summi  Pontificis.”  De 
Verb.  Dei ,  iv.  1. 


The  Literal  Sense. 


ii.  Secondly  he  asserted  not  only  the  supreme  authority 
but  the  sufficiency  of  Scripture.  The  Christian  man,  he  said, 
needed  Scripture  and  nothing  else,  not  even  a  commentary! 

I  ask  for  Scripture,  he  said,  “  and  Eck  offers  me  the  Fathers. 
I  ask  for  the  sun,  and  he  shows  me  his  lanterns.  I  ask,  ‘  Where 
is  your  Scripture  proof  ?  and  he  adduces  Ambrose  and  Cyril.” 
He  saw  that  the  Fathers  have  repeatedly  erred,  and  that, 
except  in  the  very  simplest  doctrines,  there  is  no  such  thing 
as  an  “unanimous  consent”  among  them.  “With  all  due 
respect  to  the  F athers,”  he  said,  at  Leipzig,  “  I  prefer  the 
authority  of  Scripture.”  1 

iii.  Like' all  the  other  reformers  he  set  aside  the  dreary 
fiction  of  the  fourfold  sense.  In  this  respect  he  was  in 
advance  of  Erasmus,  who  thought  that  the  Holy  Spirit  had 
meant  words  to  be  taken  in  various  senses,  and  that  this 
was  not  the  “uncertainty,”  but  the  “fecundity”  of  Scrip¬ 
ture.  “  The  literal  sense  of  Scripture  alone,”  said  Luther, 

is  the  whole  essence  of  faith  and  of  Christian  theology.”  ^ 

“  I  have  observed  this,  that  all  heresies  and  errors  have 
originated,  not  from  the  simple  words  of  Scripture,  as  is 
so  universally  asserted,  but  from  neglecting  the  simple  words 
of  Scripture,  and  from  the  affectation  of  purely  subjective 
(ex  proprio  cerebro)  tropes  and  inferences.”  “  In  the  schools 
of  theologians  it  is  a  well-known  rule  that  Scripture  is 
to  be  understood  in  four  ways,  literal,  allegoric,  moral, 
anagogic.  But  if  we  wish  to  handle  Scripture  aright,  our  one 
effort  will  be  to  obtain  unum,  simplicem ,  germanum ,  et  certum 
sensum  literalemy  “  Each  passage  has  one  clear,  definite,  and 
true  sense  of  its  own.  All  others  are  but  doubtful  and  un¬ 
certain  opinions.”  He  saw  as  clearly  as  Melanchthon  3  that  the 

1  “  Salvis  reverentiis  Patrum  ego  praefero  auctoritatem  Scripturae.”  For 
Luther  s  opinion  on  the  Fathers  see  infra.  Bishop  Jewel  is  one  of  the  many 
English  theologians  who  deny  the  existence  of  any  “unanimous  consent  of 
the  fathers;  ’  and  even  Cardinal  Newman  admits  of  the  “quod  semper 
quod  ubique,”  &c.,  that  “  it  is  hardly  available  now.” 

L  nfortunately  however,  Luther  opened  the  postern  door  for  the  re-intru- 
sion  of  artificial  dogmas  by  saying  too  unguardedlv,  “  Grammatica  non  debet 
regere  res  sed  servire  rebus.”  “  Grammaticam  deceit  Theologiae  cedere.”  Trad, 
in  Cant. ;  and  on  Gen.  xvi. 

Iffitorica,  ii.  “  Fit  enim  incerta  oratio  in  tot  sententias  discerpta. 
Nos  meminerimus  unam  quandam  ac  certam  et  simplicem  sententiam  ubique 


328  Rejection  of  Allegory. 

pretence  of  a  multiplex  intelligentia  destroyed  the  whole  mean¬ 
ing  of  Scripture  and  deprived  it  of  any  certain  sense  at  all, 
while  it  left  room  for  the  most  extravagant  perversions,  and 
became  a  subtle  method  for  transferring  to  human  fallibility 
what  belonged  exclusively  to  the  domain  of  revelation. 

iv.  It  need  hardly  be  said,  therefore,  that  Luther,  like  most 
of  the  Reformers,  rejected  the  validity  of  allegory.1  He 
totally  denied  its  claim  to  be  regarded  as  a  spiritual 
interpretation.  “  An  interpreter,”  he  said,  “  must  as  much 
as  possible  avoid  allegory,  that  he  may  not  wander  in 
idle  dreams.”  “  Origen’s  allegories  are  not  worth  so 
much  dirt.”  “  Allegories  are  empty  speculations,  and  as 
it  were  the  scum  of  Holy  Scripture.”  “Allegory  is  a  sort 
of  beautiful  harlot,  who  proves  herself  specially  seductive 
to  idle  men/’  “  To  allegorise  is  to  juggle  with  Scripture.” 
“  Allegorising  may  degenerate  into  a  mere  monkey-game 
( Affenspiel ).”  “Allegories  are  awkward,  absurd,  invented, 
obsolete,  loose  rags.”  2  Since  Paul,  after  furnishing  a  proof  \ 
had  borrowed  an  illustration  from  allegory,  we  may  use  them 
as  mere  spangles  and  pretty  ornaments  ( Schmuck  und  schone 
Span  gen),  but  nothing  more.3 

v.  Luther  also  maintained  the  perspicuity  of  Scripture,  that 
is,  its  perspicuitas  finalis  in  the  chief  matters  which  pertain  to 
the  Law  and  Gospel.  He  sometimes  came  near  to  the  modern 
remark  that,  “  the  Bible  is  to  be  interpreted  like  any  other 

quaerendam  esse.  Nam  orcitio  quae  non  habet  unam  ac  simplicem  sententiam 
nihil  docetN  Elsewhere  he  says  that  it  produces  a  prodigiosa  metamor¬ 
phosis  in  the  meaning  of  Scripture.  For  other  quotations  see  Flacius,  Claris 
Sacr.  Seripturae  (ii.  65),  and  for  Calvin’s  views,  see  his  remarks  on  Gen.  ii. 

/  8  ;  vi.  14.  The  fourfold  sense  of  Flacius  (words,  context,  purpose,  doctrine) 
is  much  more  real  than  that  of  the  schoolmen. 

1  The  single  sense  of  Scripture  was  maintained  in  the  sixteenth  century  by 
Luther  Erasmus,  Melanchthon,  Camerarius,  Osiander,  Chemnitz,  Calixt, 
Zwingli,  Bucer,  Calvin,  Beza,  Casaubon,  Drusius,  Scaliger  ;  in  the  seventeenth 
by  J.  and  L.  Cappellus,  L.  de  Dieu,  Lightfoot,  Arminius,  Grotius,  Episcopius, 
Clericus,  and  many  others..  Even  Cajetan  (+  1534)  avoids  allegory  and 
expounds  juxta  sensum  literalem.  Dedic.  ad  Carol,  v. 

2  He  speaks  more  temperately  in  his  Table  Talk  (see  Hazlitt’s  Transl.  pp. 
326-328.  See  too  Beza  on  Gal.  iv.  22-31). 

3  These  remarks  are  chiefly  found  in  Luther’s  Comm,  in  Gen.  iii. ,  xv.,  xxx. 
See  Fabricius,  Loc.  Comm.,  i.  73,  sq.  and  Opp.  Lat.  vii.  37.  He  is  least  true  to 
his  own  principle  in  the  comments  on  Job,  Psalms,  and  Canticles,  and  is  by  no 
means  always  consistent. 


Perspicuity  of  Scripture.  329 

book.  The  Holy  Ghost,  he  said,  “  is  the  all-simplest 
writer  that  is  in  heaven  or  earth  ;  therefore  his  words  can 
have  no  more  than  one  simplest  sense,  which  we  call  the 
scriptural  or  literal  meaning.”  1  He  did  not  of  course  deny 
that  there  are  difficulties  in  Scripture,  and  is  fond  of  quoting 
Gregory’s  remark,  that  it  is  “  a  river  in  which  the  lamb  may 
ford  and  the  elephant  must  swim.”  When  confronted  with  the 
fact  that  there  is  scarcely  a  verse  ill  Scripture  which  has  not 
been  interpreted  in  different  ways,  he  can  only  attribute  it  to 
malice  and  pravity,  or  with  Melanchthon  to  “  mere  petulance 
and  diabolical  sophistry.”  The  explanation  is  inadequate.  The 
strife  of  perfectly  honest  interpreters  cries  aloud  to  heaven. 
Even  such  passages  as  Christ’s  promise  to  St.  Peter,  and  the 
authority  given  to  the  Apostles,  and  the  institution  of  the 
Eucharist  have  met  with  interpretations  equally  honest  yet 
fundamentally  diverse.  The  Scripture  is  perfectly  perspicuous 
in  those  few  and  simple  truths  which  suffice  for  salvation,  but 
as  to  many  other  subjects,  and  even  as  to  subjects  which  have 
been  deemed  to  be  of  consummate  importance,  it  may  almost 
be  said  Quot  viri,  tot  sententiae.  We  can  only  say  with  Chry¬ 
sostom,  irdvra  rd  dvay/caca  Srj\a.2  Scripture  reveals  distinctly 
all  necessary  truth,  but  whole  passages  and  even  books  of 
Scripture  are  of  uncertain  significance  to  the  Christian  Church. 

vi.  Luther  maintained  with  all  his  force,  and  almost  for  the 
fiist  time  in  history,  the  absolute  indefeasible  right  of  'private, 
judgment ,  which,  with  the  doctrine  of  the  spiritual  priesthood 
of  all  Christians,  lies  at  the  base  of  all  Protestantism,  I 
might  even  say  at  the  base  of  all  manly,  sure,  and  thought¬ 
ful  religion.  He  felt  that  the  Christian  especially  is  not 
permitted  to  resign — that  it  is  a  mere  effeminate  pusilla¬ 
nimity  to  resign — into  the  hands  of  any  one  the  exercise 
of  that  spiritual  faculty — the  gift  which  comes  from  the 
unction  of  the  Holy  One— which  is  promised  to  all  Christian 

1  Answer  to  Emser.  See  Kostlin,  Luther's  Theol.  ii.  58,  284. 

2  Chrys.  in  2  Thess.  The  “perspicuity”  of  Scripture  must  certainly  be 
limited.  Luther  insisted  on  the  literal  sense  ;  Erasmus  says  that  those  com¬ 
mentators  were  to  be  preferred  who  were  farthest  removed  from  the  literal  sense. 
Jeremy  Taylor  ( Liberty  of  Prophesying,  Works,  vi.  403-419)  exaggerates  the 
difficulties  of  Scripture. 


330 


Priesthood  of  all  Christians. 

men  alike.  He  indignantly  swept  aside  the  fiction  of  a 
usurping  hierarchy,  that  priests  were  in  any  sense  the  sole 
authorised  interpreters  of  Scripture.  The  first  wall  which  he 
threw  down  in  his  attack  on  the  Papacy  was  the  Romish 
distinction  between  the  spiritual  capacity  of  the  laity  and  the 
clergy.  There  was  no  truth  to  which  Luther  clung  more 
firmly,  none  which  he  felt  to  be  nobler,  more  inspiring,  or 
more  eternally  necessary,  than  the  fact  that  Christ  has  not 
tioo  bodies  but  one  body,  wherein  every  member  has  his  office, 
which  is  to  be  a  priest  therein.  Among  Christians,  he  main¬ 
tained,  there  is  a  difference  of  office,  but  no  difference  in 
spiritual  rights,  and  that  it  is  baptism,  not  ordination, 
unction,  or  tonsure,  which  makes  any  one  “  a  religious  ”  or 
a  spiritual  man.  He  held  that  henceforth  there  is  no  such 
thing  as  a  priest  in  the  sacrificial  sense  except  Christ  alone,  nor 
is  any  minister  a  priest  in  that  sense  except  by  metaphor,  and 
by  exactly  the  same  metaphor  whereby  every  other  Christian 
is  every  whit  as  much  a  priest  as  he.1  The  use  of  the  word 
“  priest  ”  except  in  the  sense  of  presbyter,  to  describe  the 
functions  of  the  clerical  order,  and  the  confusion  of  the 
lepein;  with  the  Christian  minister,  was,  in  Luther’s  opinion' 
a  defiance  alike  of  the  whole  letter  and  spirit  of  the  New 
Testament.  The  word  of  God  was  a  word  not  to  the  clerisy, 
and  not  for  the  sole  interpretation  of  the  clerisy,  but  a  word 
to  all.2  He  held  that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  given  to  all 
Christians,  and  therefore  that  the  laity  had  a  higher  function 
than  merely  to  register  the  decrees  and  interpretations  of  a 
ministerial  class. 

There  was  nothing  which  Luther  found  it  more  difficult  to 
maintain  with  unflinching  faithfulness  than  this  indefeasible 
right  to  private  judgment.  He  was  sorely  tried  by  the 
excesses  of  individual  opinion.  The  doctrine  of  tolerance  was 

1  It  is  needless  to  repeat  that  Upevs  is  never  used  in  the  New  Testament  of 
Christian  ministers,  but  only  of  heathen  and  Jewish  priests,  or  of  Christ,  or  of 
the  whole  body  of  Christian  men  (1  Pet.  ii.  5,  9  ;  Rev.  i.  6  ;  v.  10  ;  xx.  6). 

2  This  is  the  direct  antithesis  to  the  views  of  Gerson,  who  not  only  protested 
with  all  his  might  against  the  right  of  individual  judgment,  but  said  that  the 
exegetic  views  of  the  Church  were  inspired,  and  that  any  who  disputed  them 
should  not  be  argued  with,  but  legally  punished. 


Private  Judgment. 


331 

as  yet  unhappily  unknown.  Luther  was  perplexed  and  pained 
by  the  fact  that  in  the  sacramentarian  controversy  Zwingli,  in 
the  political  controversies  the  Anabaptists,  in  the  controversy 
about  free-will  Erasmus,  in  other  controversies  Campanus  and 
Einser  and  Carlstadt  and  the  Zwickau  prophets,  all  appealed 
to  Scripture  as  constantly  and,  to  all  appearance,  as  sincerely 
as  himself,  and  claimed  the  right  to  interpret  it  in  their  own 
way.  Melanchthon  dreamed  of  getting  over  the  difficulty  by 
“  a  consensus  of  pious  men,” 1  which  was  only  another  way  of 
re-enthroning  the  fallibility  of  councils,  and  of  restoring 
that  external  dictation  of  the  sense  of  Scripture  which  Luther 
in  his  letter  to  the  Pope  had  expressly  repudiated.2  Calvin, 
too  naturally  dictatorial  to  admit  the  right  of  individual 
judgment,  talked  with  futility  about  a  “  synod  of  true 
Bishops.”3  But  Luther,  like  a  true  man,  held  fast  to  the 
claim  of  Christian  liberty.  He  preferred  the  hurricane  of 
controversies  to  the  stagnation  of  enforced  uniformity,  and  the 
pestilence  of  authoritative  error.  He  saw  the  worthlessness 
of  merely  nominal  unity,  which  only  meant  the  torpor  of  an 
unreasoning  acquiescence,  and  in  spite  of  all  trials  he  continued 
to  assert  to  the  last,  that  it  was  at  once  the  duty  and  the 
privilege  of  every  Christian  to  test  his  faith  by  the  Scriptures. 
“To  ascertain  and  judge  about  doctrine  pertains,”  he  says, 
“  to  all  and  to  every  Christian ;  and  in  such  a  way  that  let 
him  be  anathema  who  injures  their  right  by  a  single 
hair.”  4 

In  accordance  with  these  principles,  Luther,  in  his  preface 
to  Isaiah  (1528)  and  in  other  parts  of  his  writings,  lays 
dovm  what  he  conceives  to  be  the  true  rules  of  Scripture 

1  “  Interpretatio  est  donum  piorum  ”  Melanchthon’s  Loci  Communes,  p.  369. 
Unless  “  interpretatio  ”  be  confined  to  the  apprehension  of  spiritual  truths, 
which  is  a  totally  different  thing  from  the  exegesis  of  a  very  large  part  of  the 
Old,  and  even  of  the  New  Testament,  the  remark  is  absolutely  untrue. 

2  1520.  “ Leges  interpretandi  verbum  Dei  non  patior.”  See  Kbstlin, 

Luther's  Theologie,  ii.  63.  Bunsen,  God  in  History,  iii.  199-201. 

3  Calvin,  Inst.  iv.  9,  §  13.  The  only  test  of  a  “true”  Bishop  would  have 
been  one  who  accepted  the  views  of  Calvin. 

4  IV trice,  xxviii.  339  (Erl.  ed.).  He  founded  the  right  on  Matt.  vii.  15  ; 

John  x.  4,  5  ;  1  John  iv.  1  ;  1  Thess.  v.  21  ;  1  Cor.  ii.  15  ;  iii.  22.  So  too 
Flacius,  Claris,  i.  472.  “  De  interpretatione  lis  est,  penes  quern  ea  potestas 

sit?  Responsio  est  unumquemque  piorum  .  .  habere  jus  interpretandi.” 


332 


Rules  of  Interpretation. 


interpretation.  He  insists  (1)  on  the  necessity  for  gram¬ 
matical  knowledge ;  (2)  on  the  importance  of  taking  into 
consideration  times,  circumstances,  and  conditions ;  (3)  on 
the  observance  of  the  context ;  (4)  on  the  need  of  faith  and 
spiritual  illumination;  (5)  on  keeping  what  he  called  “the 
proportion  of  faith  ” ;  and  (6)  on  the  reference  of  all  Scrip¬ 
ture  to  Christ.  Of  the  former  requirements  nothing  need 
be  said,  but  the  three  latter  contained  the  germs  of  many 
subsequent  errors. 

(1)  It  is  true  and  right  to  say  that  faith  and  spiritual  enlight¬ 
enment  are  necessary  for  the  saving  knowledge  of  Scripture, 
and  for  the  saving  apprehension  of  Gospel  truths.  It  is 
further  true  that  the  Scripture  deals  with  the  will  of  God  and 
the  heart  of  man,  and  that,  therefore,  the  insight  of  a  saint 
may  often  be  of  more  value  for  its  explanation  than  the  skill 
of  a  grammarian.  But  except  in  power  to  understand  the 
few  and  simple  truths  which  are  essential  to  salvation,  it  is 
not  true  that  piety  and  orthodoxy  can  claim  any  inward  light 
or  infallible  authority  for  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible,  and 
in  the  face  of  the  age-long  mistakes  of  even  the  holiest  men 
it  is  nothing  short  of  spiritual  arrogance  to  put  forth  such  a 
claim.  It  requires  faith,  it  requires  the  aid  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  so  to  read  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  to  attain  that  best 
end  which  the  reading  of  them  serves — namely,  to  become 
thereby  wise  unto  salvation.  But  when  we  speak  of  the  whole 
Bible  we  speak  of  the  national  literature  of  many  hundreds 
of  years,  and  throughout  by  far  the  largest  part  of  the  sacred 
writings  the  decision  of  what  the  authors  say  and  mean,  apart 
from  its  personal  application,  pertains  far  less  to  piety  than  to 
grammar,  intelligence,  unbiassed  candour,  historical  knowledge* 
and  literary  tact. 

(2)  Analogia  fidei—th.Q  proportion  of  faith — is  a  watch¬ 
word  which  occurs  hundreds  of  times  in  the  writings  of  the 
Reformers.1  As  is  the  case  with  nine  out  of  every  ten 

1  It  is  practically  confused  with  the  obscure  rule  that  Scripture  interprets 
itself,  a  rule  which  exegetically  considered  has  no  meaning.  “Non  aliunde 
quam  ex  ipsa  sacra  Scriptura  certa  et  infallibilis  potest  haberi  interpretatio. 
Scriptura  enim,  vel  potius  Spiritus  Sanctus  in  scriptura  loquens,  est  sui  ipsius 


Analogy  of  Faith.  333 

dogmatic  Shibboleths  it  involved  the  misapplication  of  a 
Scriptural  phrase.  St.  Paul  has  said  that  if  we  have  the  gift 
of  prophecy  that  is  of  religious  teaching — we  ought  severally 
to  exercise  it  tear  a  ttjv  avcLhoytav  Trjs  ttlgtcoo .9,  i.e.  as  St. 
Chrysostom  rightly  explains  it,  “according  to  the  'proportion 
of  our  faith ,  according  to  the  greater  or  less  measure  of 
the  faith  which  we  have  acquired.1  This  phrase  was  first 
inaccurately  used  to  mean  Analogia  Scripturae — the  rule 
that  we  ought  to  explain  Scripture  in  accordance  with 
Scripture.2  So  far  as  it  forbade  men  to  isolate  and  distort 
any  one  passage  into  authoritative  contradiction  to  the 
whole  tenor  of  Scripture  teaching,  the  misapplied  phrase  is 
susceptible  of  a  wise  use.  It  was  soon,  however,  made  to 
mean  the  same  as  the  old  Romish  rule  that  no  explanation  is 
to  be  admitted  which  runs  counter  to-the  current  ecclesiastical 
dogmas.3  It  thus  paved  the  way  for  the  distortions  and 
sophistries  of  the  later  Protestant  scholasticism,  and  turned 
the  Old  Testament  especially  into  “  a  sort  of  obscure  forest  in 
which  dogma  and  allegory  hunt  in  couples  to  catch  what 
they  can.” 

(3)  Nor  is  Luthers  rule  “to  find  Christ  everywhere  in 
Scripture  free  from  liability  to  grave  abuse.4  Homiletically 
indeed  the  rule  is  true.  The  end  of  the  law  is  Christ.  He 
is  the  hid  treasure  and  the  pearl  of  great  price.5  But  while 

legitimus  interpres.  ’  Quenstedt,  i.  137.  Such  a  view  is  true  only  of  the 
simplest  essentials  of  the  faith.  There  is  no  mechanical  unity  in  the  Bible. 

1  he  proportion  of  faith  was  greatly  decided  by  parallel  passages 
which,  as  Luther  felt,  might  be  egregiously  abused.  He  said  that  “  to  cull 
diverse  passages  from  diverse  places  without  any  reference  to  the  sequence  of 
thought,  is  the  most  current  cause  of  going  wrong.” 

2  S.  Thom.  Aquin.,  Summ.  Ima.  qu.  i.  art.  10.  “Cum  veritas  unius 
Scripturae  ostenditur  veritati  alterius  non  repugnare.”  In  old  writers  “the 
analogy  of  faith”  was  used  as  a  practical  synonym  for  the  “  rcgula  fidei.” 
Iren.  Haer.  ii.  47  ;  Aug.  De  Cons.  Ev.  i.  1  ;  I)c  Civ.  Dei,  ii.  13  ;  c.  Faustin. 
ii.  6  ;  Tert.  Enchirid.  56. 

3  The  first  trace  of  this  rule  is  found  in  Origen,  De  Princip.  iv.  26.  Its 
most  distinct  assertor  was  Vincent  of  Lerins.  Commonitor.  Ep.  2.  See  Cone. 
Trident.  Sess.  iv. 

Audi  ist  das  der  rechte  Prufestein  alle  Bucher  zu  tadeln,  wenn  man  siehet 
ob  sie  Christum  treiben  oder  nicht,”  JPerke,  lxiii.  157.  On  this  rule  see 
Flacius,  Claris  S.  Script,  p.  7,  and  Schleiermacher,  Hermeneutik ,  §  13. 

5  .j  Wij.  erleuchten  die  alte  Heilige  Schrift  durch  das  Evangelium,”  Wcrke , 
iv.  1<  28.  “  Here  (in  the  O.T.)  shalt  thou  find  the  swaddling-clothes  and  the 


On  Genesis. 


ood? 

homiletically  we  may  with  St.  Augustine  tolerate  any  com¬ 
ment  modo  pia  sit ,  it  is  an  exegetical  fraud  to  read  developed 
Christian  dogmas  between  the  lines  of  Jewish  narratives. 
It  may  be  morally  edifying  but  it  is  historically  false  to  give 
to  Genesis  the  meaning  of  the  Apocalypse,  and  to  the  Song 
of  Solomon  that  of  the  First  Epistle  of  St.  John.1  When 
Luther  reads  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  and  the  Incarna¬ 
tion,  and  Justification  by  Faith,  and  Reformation  dogmatics 
and  polemics,  into  passages  written  more  than  a  thousand 
years  before  the  Christian  era — when,  in  a  spirit  worthy  of 
R.  Aqiba  himself,  he  infers  the  Divinity  of  the  Messiah  and 
the  “  Communication  of  Idioms  ”  from  the  particle  riK  in 
Gen.  v.  22,2  he  is  adopting  an  unreal  method  which  had  been 
rejected  a  millennium  earlier  by  the  clearer  insight  and  more 
unbiassed  wisdom  of  the  School  of  Antioch.3  As  a  con¬ 
sequence  of  this  method,  in  his  commentary  on  Genesis  he 
adds  nothing  to  Lyra  except  a  misplaced  dogmatic  treatment 
of  patriarchal  history. 

It  was,  however,  a  result  of  this  last  rule  of  interpretation 
that  Luther  assumed  the  attitude  of  manly  independence 

manger  in  which  Christ  lies.  Poor  and  of  little  value  are  the  swaddling- 
clothes,  hut  dear  is  Christ  the  treasure  that  lies  in  them.”  Pref.  to  O.T.  of 
1523.  “  Externa  variant,  interna  manentP  In  Ps.  xx.  “  Quodsi  adversarii 

Scripturam  urserint, contra  Christum,  nos  urgemus  Christum  contra  Scriptu- 
ram.” 

1  ‘  ‘  There  is  nothing  more  miserable  as  specimens  of  perverted  ingenuity  than 

the  attempts  of  certain  commentators  and  preachers  to  find  remote  and  re¬ 
condite  and  intended  allusions  to  Christ  everywhere  (in  the  Bible)  .  .  .  This 
perverted  mode  of  comment  is  not  merely  harmless,  idle,  useless,  it  is  positively 
dangerous.  This  is  to  make  the  Holy  Spirit  speak  riddles  and  conundrums, 
and  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  but  clever  riddle-guessing”  (F.  W. 
Robertson).  , 

2  He  renders  the  words  D'H  7 N!TnN  qpniY,  11  amhulavit  I)eum,”  and  finds 
in  it  the  communicatio  idiomatum,  but  not  by  the  Understanding,  which  is  only 
Kauchloch  und  Schlaffenlande.  See  his  explanation  of  the  last  words  of 
David,  1543. 

8  See  Hazlitt’s  edition  of  the  Table  Talk,  p.  74,  where  Luther  talks  much 
as  Colet  does  about  triads  ( On  the  Hierarchies,  ed.  Lupton,  p.  192). 

4  Lyra  and  Rashi  are  traceable  throughout,  and  in  his  polemical  remarks  on 
iv.  11  ;  v.  22  ;  xv.  7,  &c.,  Simon  says,  “  il  n’a  le  plus  souvent  consulte  que 
les  prejuges  dont  il  etait  rempli.”  See  Luther’s  notes  on  Gen.  i.  26  ;  ii.  7, 
14  ;  iii.  21  ;  iv.  1  ;  xi.  7-9  ;  Hum.  vi.  22  ;  2  Sam.  xxiii.  2,  &c.  Siegfried, 
Kashi's  Einjluss,  &c.  (Merx,  Archiv,  i.  432).  Yet  Luther  praised  Hilary’s 
rule  £  ‘  Optirnus  interpres  liic  est  qui  sensum  e  Scriptura  potius  retulerit  quam 
attulerit  nec  cogat  hoc  in  dictu  contentum  videri  quod  ante  intelligentiam 
docere  praesumserit.”  Fabricius,  i.  72. 


Luther  s  Independence.  335 

towards  the  Bible  which  made  him  “  the  most  radical  critic 
of  the  Church  of  the  Reformation.”1  We  cannot  find  the 
New  Testament  in  the  ordinary  historic  narratives  of  the  Old 
without  large  recourse  to  some  form  or  other  of  the  figurative 
interpretation  which  Luther  had  so  decisively  rejected.  He 
drew  a  deep  distinction  between  this  method  of  making 
Scripture  self-interpreting,  and  that  “  uncertain  under¬ 
standing  of  the  Scriptures  by  which  the  devil  gets  us  on 
his  fork  and  tosses  us  hither  and  thither  like  a  withered 
leaf.”  But  there  were  books  of  Scripture  which  failed  to 
come  up  to  his  test  of  canonicity,  and  when  this  was  the  case, 
he  unhesitatingly  placed  them  in  a  lower  position.  Had  he 
accepted  an  infallible  canon  it  could  only  have  been  on  a 
human  tradition  which  he  fundamentally  refused  to  recognise 
as  authoritative.  “  That  which  does  not  teach  Christ  is  not 
apostolic,”  he  said,  “even  if  a  Peter  or  a  Paul  taught  it.” 
Hence  he  put  some  books  far  above  others  in  value.  He 
declared  that  St.  Paul’s  Epistles  were  more  a  gospel  than 
Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  and  that  St.  John’s  Gospel,  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter  were 
“  the  right  kernel  and  marrow  of  all  books.” 2  He  has  little 
to  say  of  the  Book  of  Esther.3  He  saw  the  complete  historic 
inferiority  of  the  Books  of  Chronicles  as  compared  with  the 
Books  of  Kings.4  He  saw  that  some  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  books  had  passed  through  revising  hands.  He  refused 
to  believe  that  Solomon  could  have  written  Canticles.5  He 
points  out  the  unchronological  order  of  the  present  arrange¬ 
ment  of  the  Book  of  Jeremiah.  Believing  that  all  the 
prophets  had  built  on  the  one  foundation,  he  thought  that 
there  was  hay  and  stubble  as  well  as  gold  and  precious  stones 
in  the  superstructure.  He  was  evidently  startled  and  per- 

1  Keim,  Jem  von  Nazar  a,  i.  142  (E.  T.).  On  this  subject  see  Kbstlin, 
Luther's  Thcologic,  ii.  258-285. 

*  “  Die  rechten  gewissen  Hauptbiieher  des  N.T.” 

3  “  Ick  bin  dem  Buche  (2  Macc.)  und  Esther  so  feind  dass  ich  wollte  sie 
waren  gar  nicht  vorhanden,  denn  sie  judenzen  zu  sehr  und  kaben  viel  heidn- 
ischer  Unart.”  See  Wcrlce,  lxiii.  93-104. 

4  He  only  regarded  the  Books  of  Kings  as  “a  Jewish  Calendar,”  Tisch - 
reden ,  iv.  405. 

5  Wcrlce,  lxiii.  35-41. 


336 


The  Canon. 


plexed  by  the  story  of  Jonah.  He  regarded  the  Book  of 
Job  as  a  drama  in  glorification  of  resignation.1  He  believed 
that  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes  belonged  to  the  time  of  the 
Maccabees.  He  considered  one  of  St.  Paul’s  proofs  in  the 
Galatians  too  weak  to  hold.  Of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
he  said,  “  Who  wrote  it  is  unknown,  but  also  it  does  not 
matter.”  2  He  believed  the  Epistle  of  St.  Jude  to  be  un¬ 
necessary,  second-hand,  and  non-apostolic.3  He  called  the 
Epistle  of  St.  James  a  right  strawy  epistle  and  one  which 
flatly  ( stracks )  contradicted  St.  Paul,  and  he  did  not  believe 
it  to  be  written  by  an  Apostle  at  all.4  Of  the  Apocalypse  he 
said  that  “  his  spirit  could  not  accommodate  itself  to  the  book, 
and  that  it  was  sufficient  reason  for  the  small  esteem  in  which 
he  held  it,  that  Christ  was  neither  taught  in  it  nor  recognised.”  5 
He  classed  it  with  Esdras,  and  did  not  believe  it  to  be 
inspired.  He  thought  it  a  matter  of  no  consequence  whether 
Moses  had  written  the  Pentateuch  or  not.  Thus  without  the 
least  hesitation  he  sought  for  the  canon  within  the  canon.  It 
need  hardly  be  said  that  he  rejected  the  Apocrypha  without 
any  ceremony.  Esdras,  he  says,  “  mirum  in  modum  esther- 
issat  et  mardochissat.”  He  wished  that  the  second  book  of 
Maccabees  had  never  been  written,  because  it  contains  too 
much  heathen  folly.  He  had  a  profound  contempt  for  those 
who  had  a  way  of  “  quoting  some  single  text  and  then  setting 
up  their  horns  against  all  Scripture.”  “We  will  neither  see 
nor  hear  Moses,”  he  exclaims,  “  for  Moses  was  only  given  to 
the  Jewish  people  and  does  not  concern  us  Gentiles  and 


1  JVcrkc ,  lxiii.  25  ff.  “Like  the  comedies  of  Terence,”  Tischrcden,  iii.  130. 

He  was  the  first  to  make  the  brilliant  and  now  commonly-accepted  con¬ 
jecture  that  it  was  written  by  Apollos.  He  thought  it  a  hard  knot  that  this 
Epistle  “  stracks  vemeinet  und  versagt  die  Busse  den  Siindern,”  and  that 
Heb.  xii.  17,  “  wie  es  lauter  scheinet,  wider  alle  Evangelia  und  Episteln  S. 
Pauli  zu  seyn.”  See  Kostlin,  Luther’s  Theol.  ii.  272. 

hine  unndthige  Epistel  unter  die  Hauptbiicher  zu  rechnen.” 

4  “  Denn  sie  doch,keine  evangelische  Art  an  ihr  hat”  (Kostlin,  ii.  257.) 

5  In  some  of  these  views  he  was  preceded  by  Carlstadt,  and  followed  by 

Melanehthon,  1  lacius  ( Claris,  ii.  46),  Calvin,  the  Magdeburg  Centuriators,  and 
even  Cajetan.  But  criticism  of  the  canon  is  as  old  as  the  Babbis.  Some  of 
them  had  doubts  about  Job,  Esther,  Ezekiel  (Shabbath,  f.  13,  2),  and  the  Song 
of  Solomon  (Yadaim,  iii.  5).  6 


337 


Spiritual  Confidence. 

Christians.”  1  “  When  a  contradiction  occurs  in  Holy  Scrip¬ 

ture,”  he  says,  “  so  let  it  go.”  2  It  is  very  hard  to  reconcile 
such  remarks  with  his  formal  declaration  that  “  one  letter, 
yea,  a  single  tittle,  of  the  Scripture  is  of  more  and  greater  con¬ 
sequence  than  heaven  or  earth.”  3  In  point  of  fact  his  theory 
and  his  current  language  about  inspiration  are  as  completely 
at  variance  with  his  methods  of  criticism  as  were  those  of 
Origen,  Jerome,  and  Augustine. 

Some  of  these  Hews  were  doubtless  rash ;  they  were 
caused  by  an  almost  inevitable  deficiency  in  the  nascent 
science  of  Biblical  criticism ;  nor  did  he  desire  to  press 
them  upon  others.  And  yet  it  would  have  been  well  for  the 
peace  of  Christendom,  it  would  have  robbed  many  con¬ 
troversies,  even  in  our  own  lifetime,  of  their  miserable  bitter¬ 
ness,  if  Christians  had  acquired  the  strong  spiritual  confidence 
which  enabled  Luther  to  seize  essentials  without  being 
troubled  by  minor  details.  “  The  eagle  that  soars  near  the 
sun  does  not  worry  itself  how  to  cross  the  rivers.”  Luther  at 
least  saw  with  truth  that  the  Bible  is  a  forest  which  contains 
many  very  different  trees.  It  is  little  short  of  childish  to 
call  Luther  a  rationalist,  in  a  bad  sense,  because  of  views  like 
these.4  They  arose  not  from  rationalism  but  from  its  very 
opposite — the  sovereign  supremacy  of  a  faith  which  read  the 
Bible  with  fresh  unbiassed  eyes,  and  felt  the  closeness  of  the 
immediate  communion  with  God  and  Christ.  In  point  of  fact. 
Allegory  and  Mysticism  are  as  regards  the  Bible  far  more 
rationalistic.  They  avowedly  refuse  to  accept  it  as  it  is. 
They  avowedly  make  it  say  something  else  than  it  actually 
does  say.  They  start  with  the  repeated  assertion  that  the 
letter  of  the  Bible  is  in  many  passages  too  crude,  or  too 
trivial  for  their  acceptance.  Luther  had  little  need  for  such 
expedients.  With  him  faith  and  the  Scriptures  were  not 

1  See  Kbstlin,  ii.  78,  sq.%  258,  sq.\  Diestel,  pp.  250,  251. 

8  He  expresses  his  indifference  to  small  points  of  variation  in  the  Gtspels 
( ti  crlr,  xliv.  174). 

3  AVe  may  refer  generally  to  his  remarks  on  Heb.  ii.  13  ;  Gal.  iv. 
22,  kc. 

4  The  charge  is  first  found  in  Krause,  Opicsc.  p.  199. 


Z 


338 


Faith  in  Christ. 


disparate  things  which  hindered  or  excluded  each  other ;  they 
were  things  which  had  a  like  origin  in  the  Holy  Spirit  which 
proceeds  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  there  could  there¬ 
fore  be  no  enmity  or  discordance  between  them.1  No  one 
has  used  stronger  language  than  this  so-called  rationalist 
against  the  unwarranted  and  exclusive  reliance  on  the  human 
understanding.2  His  free  criticisms  were  due  not  to  the  in¬ 
solence  of  reason  but  to  the  assurance  of  belief.  “  I  have  on 
my  side,”  he  said,  “  the  Master  and  the  Lord  of  Scripture,  and 
let  them  go  on  in  their  hostile  cry  that  the  Scriptures  con¬ 
tradict  themselves.  Hear  thou  well,  thou  art  almost  a  bully 
with  the  Scriptures,  which  are  nevertheless  under  Christ  as 
a  servant,  and  for  this  end  tliou  hringest  out  of  them'  ivhat  is 
not  altogether  the  host  portion.  For  this  I  do  not  care  in  the 
slightest ;  boast  away  of  the  servant,  I,  however,  glory  in 
Christ  who  is  the  true  Lord  and  Sovereign  of  the  Scriptures. 
Him  have  I,  and  by  Him  I  abide.”  At  the  same  time  he 
believed  that  the  Scriptures  could  not  contradict  themselves, 
and  that  therefore  a  criticism  of  the  canon  by  faith  was  a 
criticism  of  the  Scriptures  by  themselves.  He  strove  “to 
equalise  the  Scriptures  and  the  Christian  conscience.”  He 
believed  in  the  Holy  Ghost. 

These  deep  and  far-reaching  opinions  of  Luther’s,  which 
differentiate  him  from  the  mass  of  his  predecessors,  are  not 
indeed  elaborated  into  a  system,  or  thoroughly  coordinated 
with  each  other.  He  never  makes  it  perfectly  clear  to  us 
now  he  could  place  in  Scripture  a  confidence  so  absolute,  and 
yet  subject  it  to  a  criticism  so  fearless.  But  he  set  forth 
one  or  two  principles  on  the  right  apprehension  of  which  the 
future  of  the  Christian  Faith,  amid  the  advancing  noon  of 
knowledge,  must  certainly  depend. 


1  Dorner,  i.  250. 

2  He  calls  Reason  “a  poisonous  beast  with  many  dragon’s  heads  ;  ” 


“old 

Madam  Weather- witch. ”  (die  alte  Frau  Wettermacherin)  ;  “a  devil’s  bride 
“a  beautiful  strumpet;”  “a  mangy,  leprous  harlot,”  &c.,  JFerJce,  viii. 
294  ;  xii.  1530,  1533,  1537  (Beard,  p.  156).  It  did  not  strike  him  that  such 
language  is  absurd.  Even  at  Worms  he  saw  that  he  must  be  refuted  out  of 
Scripture  or  “ evidentissimis  rationibus .”  But  by  “reason”  he  sometimes 
meant  the  purely  psychical  “  understanding.” 


339 


Luther's  Principles . 

I.  One  of  these  is  that  the  Word  of  God  is  not  to  be  regarded 
as  identical  and  coextensive  with  the  Holy  Scriptures.1  He  in¬ 
dubitably  admitted  “a  difference  between  the  Word  of  God 
and  the  Holy  Scriptures,  not  merely  in  reference  to  the  form, 
but  also  in  reference  to  the  subject-matter.”  2  He  made  a 
distinction  between  author  and  author.  He  set  one  book  far 
above  another  in  value.  Christ,  and  Christ  alone,  was  to  him 
without  all  error — was  alone  the  essential  Word  of  God.3 

II.  His  view  of  Inspiration  was  not  verbal .4  The  Bible  was 
not  to  him  a  stereotyped  collection  of  supernatural  syllables. 
He  took  a  living  and  historical  view  of  the  origin  of  the 
sacred  books.  He  held  that  they  were  not  dictated  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  but  that  His  illumination  produced  in  the 
minds  of  their  writers  the  knowledge  of  salvation,  so  that 
divine  truth  had  been  expressed  in  human  form,  and  the 
knowledge  of  God  had  become  a  personal  possession  of  man. 
The  actual  writing  was  a  human  not  a  supernatural  act.5  It 
had  been  accomplished  in  full  human  consciousness,  and  not 
as  the  Alexandrians  taught,  in  a  spasm  of  self-annihilating 
ecstasy.  The  sacred  authors  received  the  historical  matter 
not  by  inspiration,  but  (as  St.  Luke  and  others  so  clearly  tell 
us)  by  purely  historical  research ;  and  it  was  only  under  a 


1  Diestel  (p.  283)  says  that  the  identification  of  the  Bible  with  the  Word  of 
God  (of  course  he  means  after  the  Reformation)  is  first  found  in  G.  Major,  Be 
Origine  Verbi  Dei,  1550.  See  Heppe,  Alt.  Prot.  Dogmatik,  i.  257. 

a‘  Dorner,  i.  244.  He  did  not  regard  all  the  Bible  as  one  equally  divine 
Book,  but  as  a  living  organism.  See  his  remarks  on  John  v.  39,  and  Romberg, 
Die  Lehrc  Lathers  von  den  heil.  Schrift  (Wittenb.  1868),  p.  5. 

3  Wcrke.  xxii.  654,  Erlang.  “  Gesetz  und  Evangelium  sind  zwei  ganz 
widenvartige  Hinge  die  sich  mit  oder  neben  einander  nicht  leiden  oder  ver- 
triwen  konnen.”  He  spoke  of  some  parts  of  the  ceremonial  law  as  “gleich 
narriscli  und  vergeblich  auzusehen.”  He  recognises  in  the  living  whole  ol 
scripture  “  edlere  und  minder  edle  Glieder,  fundamentale  und  nicht  funda- 

mentale  Glaubenslehren,”  Romberg,  p.  15. 

4  Hence  he  even  speaks  of  Ecclesiasticus  as  “Holy  Scripture  written  by 
some  poet  or  prophet  ‘  ‘  aus  dan  Hciligcn  Gcist  ”  (  Vorre  ten  zu  den  Bill.  Buchem). 
“  Luther  die  gottliche  offenbarung  nicht  als  mechanische  Mittheilung  iibernatui- 
licher  Erkeiintniss  sondern  als  dynamische  Lebensentvicklungaullasst,  Rom 


berg  *2,7  • 

5  From  this  strong  recognition  of  the  human  element,  he  speaks  of  Joel  as 
“ein  giitiger  und  sanfter  Mann  ;  and  says  ol  .\mos,  Ei  ist  abei  auch  lultig 
und  schilt  das  Volk  Israel  fast  durch  das  ganze  Buch  aus  .  .  dass  er  wohl 


mag 


lieisseii  Amos,  d.  i. 


eine  Last,  oder  der  schwer  und  verdriesslich  ist 

z  2 


Continuous  Revelation. 


340 

grace  of  general  superintendence  that  they  sifted  and  arranged 
it  in  proportion  to  the  power  and  illumination  they  had 
received.  Luther  was  never  guilty  of  the  inexcusable  misuse 
of  language  and  confusion  of  thought  which  makes  inspiration 
involve  infallibility.  He  saw  clearly  that  just  as  the  Spirit  of 
the  Lord  may  come  upon  a  Samson,  a  David,  and  a  Peter, 
and  yet  leave  them  liable  to  moral  abenations,  so  the  same 
Spirit  may  dilate  and  illumine  the  faculties  of  a  writer  while 
it  left  him  in  all  respects  a  human  writer  still.1 

III.  Once  more,  he  held  that  the  Word  of  God  is  not  in  the 
Scriptures  alone.  Inspiration  still  continues.  It  was  no  mere 
exhausted  spasm  of  the  past.  It  is  not  to  Christians  that 
the  eternal  oracles  are  dumb.  The  essential  Word  is  still  a 
living  and  a  speaking  Word.  It  does  not  consist  in  any  col¬ 
lection  of  dead  sounds.  “  God,”  he  said,  “  does  not  speak  gram¬ 
matical  vocables,  but  true  essential  things.  Thus,  sun  and 
moon,  Peter  and  Paul,  thou  and  I,  are  nothing  but  words  of 
God.” 2  What  may  once  have  been  a  word  of  God  in  times 
past  unto  the  Fathers,  is  not  necessarily  the  word  of  God  to 
us.  The  multitude  of  Christians  in  believing  that  God;  spoke 
to  holy  men  of  old  have  altogether  forgotten  that  He  speaks 
to  them  still,  though  neither  then  nor  now  does  He  raise  the 
finite  to  the  capacities  of  the  infinite,  so  that  neither  they  nor 
we  were  made  either  perfect  or  all-wise,  or  on  all  subjects 
infallible,  although  moved  by  the  Ploly  Ghost.  There  was  a 
time  when  patriarchs  and  prophets  had  no  Old  Testament, 
when  saints  and  martyrs  had  no  New  Testament.  As 
Zwingli  said,  “  He  who  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  no  longer 
solely  dependent  on  a  book.”  3 

1  Hence  he  admits  the  existence  of  (unimportant)  chronological  and  historic 
errors.  Romberg,  p.  16  ;  Dorner,  i.  255.  “  Jacobus  delirae.”  See  Kostlin,  ii.  257. 

2  “In  the  deepest  meaning  of  the  essential  and  only  truth  .  .  all  things 
in  the  world  are  only  variously-embodied  words  of  the  Creator,  inasmuch  as 
by  this  mighty  word  alone  they  are  upheld  in  being.  Hence  “IZH  and  prjpa  in 
Scripture  signify  both  word  and  thing.”— Stier,  Words  of  the  Lord  Jesus, 
i  38.  Raymond  of  Sabieude  (1430)  was  one  of  the  first  to  recognise  (in  his 
Theologia  Naturalis )  that  Nature  is  a  Book  of  God.  See  the  thought 
developed  in  Bacon,  Be  Augm.  Sdent.  (ed.  Spedding,  i.  149) 

3  Zwingli,  Opp.  ii.  p.  250  ( cd .  Schuler  and  Schulthess)  ap.  Horner,  i.  290. 

“  Riety  is  a  fact  and  an  experience,  not  a  doctrine  or  a  science.”  Opp.  iii".  202^ 


Other  Reformers. 


341 


Such  were  the  views  of  Luther  and  it  is  impossible  to 
exaggerate  their  importance.  They  shew  a  clearer  vision  and 
a  more  vital  faith  in  the  Holy  Spirit  than  had  ever  been  fully 
manifested  since  the  Apostolic  age,  or  than  has  since  been 
attained  by  any  but  a  brave  and  faithful  few.  They  were  the 
ripe  fruit  of  the  long  results  of  Christian  time,  and  they 
furnished  to  the  principles  of  manly  Christian  exegesis  a 
more  valuable  contribution  than  interminable  folios  of 
trad  i tional  com  mentary . 

6.  It  will  be  needless  to  dwell  at  length  on  a  multitude  of 
other  names.  If  Luther  was  the  prophet  of  the  Reformation 
Melanchthon  was  the  teacher.  If  “  the  miner’s  son  drew 
forth  the  metal  of  faith  out  of  the  deep  pit,  the  armourer’s 
son  fashioned  the  metal  for  defiance  and  defence.”  1  Carlstadt,2 
Seb.  Franck,3  Denck,4  even  the  unhappy  Muntzer 5  helped  for¬ 
ward  the  cause  of  a  truer  interpretation.  Zwingli,  with 
absolute  independence,  had  arrived  at  opinions  on  this  subject 
which  in  all  essential  particulars  coincided  with  those  of 
Luther ;  only  that  his  sunny  and  practical  turn  of  mind  had 
led  him  to  choose  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  and  the  two  Epistles  to  Timothy,  rather  than  the 
Epistles  to  the  Romans  and  Galatians,  as  his  basis  for  scrip- 


1  See  Thilo,  Melanchthon  im  Dienstc  an  hdliger  Schrift,  Berlin,  1860.  G. 
T.  Stro'bel,  Hist.  Litt.  Nachricht  ton  Phil.  Melanchthon’ s  Vcrdicnsten  am  die 
hcihge  Schrift,  Altdorf,  1773.  Galle,  Versuch.  einer  Charakteristik  Mclanch- 
thons,  Halle,  1840.  Melanchthon’s  most  important  services  as  an  exegete 
were  philological  and  theological.  He  says,  “  Ignavus  in  grammatica  est 
ignavus  in  theologia.”  Postill.  iv.  428. 

2  See  his  Libcllus  dc  Canonids  Scripturis ,  Angsh.  1520  ;  Dorner,  i.  126-132. 

3  “To  the  devout,”  he  said,  “all  is  an  open  book,  wherein  he  learns 
more  from  the  creatures  and  work  of  God  than  a  godless  man  out  of  all 
Bibles.”  “Antichrist,  who  is  now  tired  of  the  Pope  .  .  will  put  on  another 
disguise,  and  .  .  be  more  learned  in  Scripture  than  we.  .  .  Many  are  making 
an  idol  of  Scripture.”  “The  Scriptures  are  only  the  shell,  cradle,  sheath, 
lantern,  court,  letter,  veil,  and  surrounding  of  the  Word  of  God ,  which  is  ti  e 
kernel,  infantry  sword,  light,  sanctuary,  spirit  and  life,  fulness  and  reality.” 
Id.  i.  193.  He  regarded  all  history  as  a  Bible,  and  distinguished  between  the 
written  and  the  unwritten  word. 

4  “He  regarded  the  world  as  the  great  word  of  God,  and  individuals  as 

letters  of  the  word.”  Id.  i.  191.  “1  esteem  the  Holy  Scriptures,”  he  said, 

“  above  all  human  treasures  ;  but  not  so  highly  as  the  Word  of  God,  which  is 
living,  powerful,  eternal,  free  and  independent  of  all  elements  of  this  world  ; 
spirit,  and  not  letter,  written  without  pen  and  paper."  See  Hase,  Seb.  Franck. 

5  Horner,  i.  135-139. 


342 


Other  Reformers. 


tural  instruction 1  A  host  of  Reformation  expositors  en¬ 
deavoured  to  spread  the  truths  to  which  they  had  been  led 
by  the  German  and  Swiss  Reformers.  It  will  be  sufficient 
here  merely  to  mention  the  names  of  Oecolampadius  (41581), 
Bucer  (41551),  Brenz  (41570),  Bugenhagen  (41558),  Muscu- 
lus  (41563),  Camerarius  (41574),  Bullinger  (41575),  Chemnitz 
(41586),  and  Beza  (41605).  Among  all  of  these  there  was  a 
general  agreement  in  principles,  a  rejection  of  scholastic 
methods,  a  refusal  to  acknowledge  the  exclusive  dominance  of 
patristic  authority  and  church  tradition  ;  a  repudiation  of  the 
hitherto  dominant  fourfold  meaning ;  an  avoidance  of  allegory ; 
a  study  of  the  original  languages  ;  a  close  attention  to  the 
literal  sense  ;  a  belief  in  the  perspicuity  and  sufficiency  of 
Scripture ;  the  study  of  Scripture  as  a  whole,  and  the  refer¬ 
ence  of  its  total  contents  to  Christ.  These  principles  were 
followed  in  many  writings  and  commentaries,  and  found  their 
clearest  statement  and  most  systematic  development  in  the 
Claris  Scripturae  Sacrae  of  Flacius  Illyricus.2 

/ .  But  the  greatest  exegete  and  theologian  of  the  Reforma¬ 
tion  was  undoubtedly  Calvin'. 

i.  He  is  not  an  attractive  figure  in  the  history  of  that  great 
movement.  The  mass  of  mankind  revolt  against  the  ruthless 
logical  rigidity  of  his  “  horrible  decree.”  They  fling  it  from 
their  belief  with  the  eternal  “  God  forbid  !  ”  of  an  inspired 
natural  horror.  They  dislike  the  tyranny  of  theocratic  sacer¬ 
dotalism  which  he  established  at  Geneva.  Nevertheless  his 
Commentaries,  almost  alone  among  those  of  his  epoch,3  are  still 


1  Dorner,  i.  287  290  “  The  Scriptures  are  in  his  view  chiefly  the  revelation 

or  memorial  of  the  will  of  God.” 

2  Flacius,  Claris,  Praef.  Matthias  Flacius  Illyricus  (t  1575)  was-onfe  of 
the  most  learned,  theologians  among  the  early  Lutherans,  and  his  Claris 
Scripturae  Sacrae  is  lull  of  learning  and  vigour.  Jn  the  dedication  there  is  a 

clear  sketch  of  the  previous  epochs  of  exegesis.  Klausen  (Her men. 
gives  an  outline  of  its  general  principles.  Diestel  (p.  953),  who  says 
mat  they  are  little  more  than  a  mixture  of  Jerome,  Augustine,  and  Luther, 
hardly  does  him  justice.  ’ 

•*  The  Reformation  period  produced  hosts  of  commentators— Luther. Melanch- 
tnon,  Zwingli,  Musculus,  Pellicanus,  Chytraeua,  Brenz,  Bugenhagen, 

11  ingeL  ^cza,  Bucer,  Mercer,  Camerarius,  and  many  more.  Calvin  was 
moiy  indebted  to  Bucer  than  any  one  else.  In  his  Dedication  to  the  Gospel 
Jtarmoyiy  he ;  says,  “  Bucerum  praesertim  .  .  eximium  Ecclesiae  doetorem  sum 
lmitatus.  The  opinions  ol  Beza  had  great  weight  with  our  English  reformers, 


Calvin. 


343 


r 

AkJO 


L'J 


a  living  force.1  They  are  far  more  profound  than  those  of 
Zwingli,  more  thorough  and  scientific,  if  less  original  and 
less  spiritual,  than  those  of  Luther.  In  spite  of  his  many 
defects — the  inequality  of  his  works,  his  masterful  arrogance 
of  tone,  his  inconsequent  and  in  part  retrogressive  view 
of  inspiration,  the  manner  in  which  he  explains  away 
every  passage  which  runs  counter  to  his  dogmatic  pre¬ 
possessions2 — in  spite,  too,  of  his  “hard  expressions  and 
injurious  declamations — ” 3  he  is  one  of  the  greatest  inter¬ 
preters  of  Scripture  who  ever  lived.  He  owes  that  position 
to  a  combination  of  merits.  He  had  a  vigorous  intellect,  a 
dauntless  spirit,  a  logical  mind,  a  quick  insight,  a  thorough 
knowledge  of  the  human  heart,  quickened  by  rich  and  strange 
experience ;  above  all,  a  manly  and  glowing  sense  of  the  gran¬ 
deur  of  the  Divine.4  The  neatness,  precision,  and  lucidity  of  his 
style,  his  classic  training  and  wide  knowledge,  his  methodical 
accuracy  of  procedure,  his  manly  independence,  his  avoidance 
of  needless  and  commonplace  homiletics,  his  deep  religious 
feeling,  his  careful  attention  to  the  entire  scope  and  context  of 
every  passage,  and  the  fact  that  he  has  commented  on  almost 

Avho  regarded  him  as  the  greatest  theologian  of  his  day.  Out  of  252  pas¬ 
sages  Dr.  Scrivener  has  shown  that  our  translators  of  1611  have  preferred  his 
readings  to  those  of  Stephen,  Erasmus,  the  Vulgate,  and  the  Complutensian. 
From  his  Latin  version  they  adopted  some  of  their  worst  marginal  renderings 
(Mark  i.  34  ;  Luke  iv.  41  ;  Acts  i.  8  ;  Rom.  xi.  17),  though  their  good  sense 
delivered  them  from  following  him  still  more  disastrously  in  Matt.  i.  23  ;  John 
xviii  20  ;  Acts  ii.  41  ;  Rom.  ii.  7  ;  v.  16  ;  xi.  32  ;  1  Cor.  xiii.  2  ;  James,  ii. 
14,  &c. 

1  This  is  illustrated  by  their  translation  into  English  and  republication  very 
recently.  Poole,  in  the  preface  to  his  Synopsis ,  excuses  himself  for  not  referring 
more  frequently  to  Calvin  on  the  ground  that  others  have  borrowed  from  him 
so  largely  that  to  quote  them  is  to  quote  him  !  See  Bayle’s  notice  of  him, 
and  further,  Klausen,  Hcrmeneutik,  pp.  227  fg.  ;  Meyer,  Gesch.  d.  Schrifterkl. 
ii.  448-475  ;  Diestel,  pp.  241  sq.  ;  Reuss,  Gesch.  d.  Heilig.  Schrift.  §  569  ; 
Beard,  Hihbert  Lectures ,  258 fg.  ;  Tholuck,  Die  Verdicnste  Calvins  als  Aus- 
legcr  dcr  Hciligen  Schrift  ( Verm.  Schriften.  ii.  330-360);  Merx,  Joel ,  pp  428- 
444  ;  Haag,  La  France  Frotcstante,  Art.  Calvin. 

-  G.  W.  Meyer,  Gesch.  d.  Schriftcrkldrung ,  ii.  450.  See  Simon's  Hist.  Crit. 
ties  Comment  du  N.  T.  p.  747.  Simon  is  unjust  in  his  depreciation  of 
Calvin’s  learning.  He  had  received  a  classic  training,  his  first  book  was  an 
edition  of  Seneca,  De  Clcmentia ,  and  in  his  Commentaries  he  quotes  Plato, 
Plutarch,  Polybius,  Cicero,  Ovid,  Quintilian,  Aulus  Gellius,  kc. 

3  In  a  commentary  on  St.  John  we  are  shocked  to  stumble  very  soon  on 
such  a  sentence  as  “  Servetus,  mpcrbissimiis  cx  gente  Hispanica  nebulo.” 

4  He  speaks  of  tradition  and  of  the  Fathers  more  respectfully  than  Luther 
does.  See  Fraef.  in  Horn,  and  Fracf.  in  Inst. 


su 


His  Commentaries. 


the  whole  of  the  Bible,  make  him  tower  above  the  great 
majority  of  those  who  have  written  on  Holy  Scripture.1 
Nothing  can  furnish  a  greater  contrast  to  many  helpless 
commentaries,  with  their  congeries  of  vacillating  variorum 
annotations  heaped  together  in  aimless  multiplicity,  than  the 
terse  and  decisive  notes  of  the  great  Genevan  theologian. 
He  was  a  foe  to  all  vagueness,  prolixity,  and  digression. 
“I  hold,”  he  wrote  to  his  friend  Grynaeus,  “that  the  chief 
excellence  of  an  Expositor  consists  in  clearness  and 
brevity.  2  He  fulfilled  his  own  ideal  in  an  exposition 
“brief,  facile,  luminous,  full  of  rare  sagacity,  and  entire 
good  faith.  Hundreds  of  pages  have  been  written  about 
“  a  woman  having  power  on  her  head.”  Calvin  says  all 
that  is  essential  in  the  three  lines  that  the  word  “  power  ” 
means  by  metonymy  “  a  symbol  of  her  husband’s  power  over 
her,  and  is  here  used  for  some  sort  of  veil.  He  never  drao*s 
his  weary  reader  through  a  bewildering  mass  of  opinions,  of 
which  some  are  absurd,  the  majority  impossible,  and  of  which 
all  but  one  must  be  wrong.  “  Dimoveri  non  possum”  he  says, 
“  ab  amore  compendia’ 

11.  Nor  is  it  a  less  supreme  merit  that  he  has  a  contempt 
for  all  exegetic  falsities  and  frivolities,  such  as  still  show  a 
fatal  vitality  in  the  commentaries  of  to-day.3  We  have 
already  seen  the  comments  of  Rabbis,  Fathers,  and  schoolmen 
on  the  first  verse  of  Joel,  the  son  of  Pethuel.  Since  Pethuel 
is  mentioned,  said  the  Rabbis,  he  too  must  have  been  a 

1  He  is  at  his  best  in  his  Commentaries  on  the  Acts,  on  St.  Paul’s  Epistles, 
and  on  the  Psalms.  The  notes  on  the  minor  Prophets  were  much  less  elaborate. 
Hooker,  in  a  MS.  note  quoted  by  Keble,  says  that  “the  sense  of  Scripture 
which  Calvin  alloweth,”  was  held  to  he  of  more  force  than  if  “  ten  thousand 
Augustines,  Jeromes,  Chrysostoms,  Cyprians  were  brought  forth.”  He  com¬ 
pares  his  influence  to  that  of  Peter  Lombard  among  the  Schoolmen.  Eccl 
Pol.,  Prof.  ii.  8. 

y  See  Praef.  in  Pom.  In  this  preface,  and  in  his  letter  to  Viret  (May  19, 

1  o40),^he  gives  us  his  conception  of  the  duty  of  an  expositor.  Schleiermacher 
says,  Die  gliickliche  Ausiibung  der  Kunst  (des  Auslegens)  beruht  auf  dem 
Sprachtalent  und  dem  Talent  der  einzelnen  Menschenkenntniss  ”  ( Hermeneutik , 

§10).  Calvin  had  both,  and  the  latter  enabled  him  to  enter  into  the  feelings 
of  the  sacred  writers.  & 

See  his  notes  on  John  i.  3  ;  Heh.  xi.  13  ;  Gen.  iii.  21  (“  Non  sie  accipi 
lmec  verba  convcnit  quasi  Ecus  fuerit  pellifex.  Credibile  est  .  .  necessitate 
coacios  mactasse  aliqua  ( animalia )  quorum  se  corio  tegerent  ”). 


His  Sincerity. 


345 


Prophet.  “We  see  how  impudent  they  were/5  says  Calvin, 
“  in  such  fictitious  comments ;  when  they  have  no  reason  to 
offer,  they  invent  a  fable,  and  obtrude  it  as  an  oracle/’  Nor 
is  he  less  disdainful  of  Christian  figments.  It  had  (as  we 
have  seen)  been  irresistible  to  Jerome  and  other  patristic  and 
mediaeval  commentators  to  drag  the  phrase  “  Verhum  Dei 
quod  factum  est  ad  Joel,”  into  a  sign  of  the  Incarnation,  as 
though  it  implied  the  same  as  “  the  Word  was  made  flesh  !  ” 
The  strong  good  sense  of  Calvin  regarded  such  comments  as 
a  discreditable  paltering  with  words,  and  he  swept  the  fiction 
aside  with  the  one  contemptuous  word,  Nugac  !  Hence  he 
carries  out  the  principles  of  Luther  and  Melanchthon  with 
more  consistent  thoroughness.  He  will  not  tamper  with 
allegory  as  they  do,  even  for  ornamental  and  homiletic  pur¬ 
poses.1  He  saw  more  clearly  than  Luther  that  the  method 
has  no  foundation,  and  is  liable  to  gross  error.2  He  will  not 
give  a  mystic  significance  even  to  the  Levitic  law,  because, 
he  says,  “  It  is  better  to  confess  ignorance  than  to  play  with 
frivolous  guesses.” 

iii.  A  characteristic  feature  of  Calvin’s  exegesis  is  its 
abhorrence  of  hollow  orthodoxy.  He  regarded  it  as  a  dis¬ 
graceful  offering  to  a  God  of  truth.  He  did  not  hold  the 
theory  of  verbal  dictation.  He  will  never  defend  or  har¬ 
monise  what  he  regards  as  an  oversight  or  mistake  in  the 
sacred  writers.3  He  scorns  to  support  a  good  cause  by  bad 
reasoning.  In  Gen.  iii.  15,  he  says  that  “  seed  ”  is  a  collective 
term  for  “  posterity  ”  and  was  only  interpreted  of  Christ  by 
subsequent  experience.  He  will  not  admit  the  force  of 
arguments  in  favour  of  the  Trinity  drawn  from  the  plural 


1  See  his  note  on  Gal.  iv.  22.  He  quotes  Chrysostom  to  show  that  “allegory  ” 
is  here  used  in  an  improper  sense  (KaraxpvariKws),  and  that  Moses  meant  the 
history  only  in  a  literal  sense.  He  calls  it  a  “  commentum  Satanae,  to 
annihilate  the  dignity  of  Scripture.”  He  says  that  allegories  are  “puerile” 
and  “farfetched,”  and  that  “he  gladly  abstains  from  them  because  there  is 
in  them  nothing  firm  and  solid.”  ‘ ‘  Ajjinis  sacrilegio  audacia  est  Scripturas 
tcmere  hue  illuc  versare  et  quasi  in  re  lusoria  lascivire.  ’  ’  Prcief.  in  Pom. 

2  Peter  Martyr  in  his  Loci  Communes  Theol.  dwells  on  the  imprudence  of 
using  a  method  which  Anabaptists  used,  “  ad  paradoxa  sua  imperitis  compro- 
banda.” 

s  Matt,  xxvii.  9;  Acts  vii.  16  (“  hie  locus corrigendus  est  ”). 


346 


Ills  Boldness. 


“let  ns  make/’  nor  from  the  three  angels  who  appeared  to 
Abraham,  nor  from  the  Trisagion.1  He  will  not  with  Luther 
see  a  sign  of  the  Incarnation  in  the  Burning  Bush.2  He  sets 
aside  many  of  the  untenable  arguments  drawn  from  passages 
in  Isaiah  in  favour  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ,3  which,  he  says, 
would  only  appear  ludicrous  to  Jews.  In  saying  that  it  is 
absurd  to  interpret  the  “  stone  cut  without  hands  ”  of  the 
virgin  birth  of  Christ  he  rejects  an  interpretation  common  to 
the  Fathers.4  He  says  that  he  would  not  dare  to  press  a 
Sabellian  with  such  a  phrase  as  “  the  breath  of  his  mouth.” 
Nor  was  he  less  independent  in  his  views  on  the  New 
Testament.5  His  robust  honesty  in  these  particulars  drew 
on  him  the  most  savage  hatred.  Montacute  charged  him 
with  wresting  their  weapons  out  of  the  hands  of  Christian 
athletes.6  Walch  said  “he  expounded  oracles  about  the 
Trinity  and  the  Messiah  in  accordance  with  Jewish  and 
Socinian  views.”7  The  Roman  Catholics  called  him  a 
Mohammedan,8  and  the  Protestant  Hunnius,  in  his  Calvinus 
Judaisans,  said  that  he  had  corrupted  Scripture  in  a  detest¬ 
able  manner,  and  that  he  ought  to  have  been  burnt.9 

iv.  But  the  most  characteristic  and  original  feature  of  his 
Commentaries  is  his  anticipation  of  modern  criticism  in  his 
views  about  the  Messianic  prophecies.  He  saw  that  the 
words  of  psalmists  and  prophets,  while  they  not  only  admit  of 

1  See  his  notes  on  Gen.  xviii.  2;  Is.  vi.  3. 

2  Note  on  Ex.  iii.  2. 

3  See  notes  on  Is.  iv.  9  ;  xlviii.  16. 

4  Justin,  Tertullian,  Origen,  Basil,  Jerome,  Augustine,  all  apply  it  to  Christ. 
See  Rosenmiiller,  ii.  917.  Feuardentius  called  Calvin’s  view  “  Judaicam  plane 
impietatem.  ” 

J  See  his  notes  cn  Matt.  xi.  11  ;  xvi.  18  (where,  in  opposition  to  Luther,  he 
makes  the  Rock  to  be  Peter  as  the  representative  of  all  believers)  ;  John  x. 
30  (which  he  applies  to  the  ivill  of  Christ,  not  to  the  Homoousian )  ;  John  i. 
51  ;  v.  31,  32 :  2  Cor.  xii.  7  ;  1  Pet.  iii.  19,  &c. 

6  Orig.  Eecl.  i.  310. 

7  "VV  alch,  Bibl.  Theol.  iv.  413. 

8  Limborch,  Theol.  Christ,  p.  34. 

9  A-g  1593.  Hunnius  was  answered  by  Parens  in  his  Orthodoxies  Calvinus, 
who,  with  equal  amenity,  assigned  the  work  of  Hunnius  to  the  authorship  of 
the  devil..  See  Buddeus,  Isagoge,  pp.  1062  sq.  ;  Limborch,  Theol.  p.  34. 
Calvin  might  reply  as  Facundus  did  for  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia. — “  Conse- 
quens  non  est  ut  evacuet  omnes  in  Christum  factas  prophetias  qui  aliqua 
mystice  in  eum  dicta  moraliter  quoque  tractaverit.  ” 


347 


Views  of  Prophecy. 

but  demand  “germinant  and  springing  developments,”  were 
yet  primarily  applicable  to  the  events  and  circumstances  of 
their  own  days.  The  use  made  of  them  by  Evangelists 
and  Apostles  he  regarded  as  erre^eprydaiai ;  as  illustrative 
references ;  as  skilful  adaptations ;  as  admissible  trans¬ 
ferences  ;  as  metaphoric  allusions ;  as  fair  accommodations ; 
as  pious  deflections.1  It  must  not  be  supposed  for  a  moment 
that  he  denied  the  reality  of  Messianic  prophecy,  or  failed 
to  see  in  it  the  very  heart  of  spiritual  Judaism.  But 
he  would  not  confuse  the  generality  of  a  Divine  Promise,  or 
the  yearning  of  faithful  hearts  for  a  promised  Deliverer,  with 
minute  vaticinations,  which,  torn  from  their  context,  would 
have  had  no  significance  for  those  to  whom  the  prophets 
addressed  their  words.  It  will  be  clear  to  all  who  have  an 
adequate  knowledge  of  the  subject,  that  whether  Calvin’s 
phrases  in  reference  to  the  New  Testament  quotations  were 
happy  or  not,  they  can  only  be  judged  with  reference  to  the 
entire  view  of  prophecy  of  which  they  form  a  part.  That 
view,  which  is  now  all  but  universally  accepted,  so  far  from 
degrading  prophecy  gives  to  it  a  diviner  grandeur  and  eleva¬ 
tion.  It  lifts  it  from  the  level  of  a  heathen  oracle  to  the 
inspired  utterance  of  an  indefeasible  conviction.  It  hears  in 
the  ancient  prophets  of  Israel  the  voice  of  a  living  God,  and 
in  His  promises  the  assurance  of  an  eternal  and  unfading 
hope  in  the  advent  of  a  Deliverer,  who  for  themselves  and  for 
the  nation  would  make  “  life’s  broken  purpose  whole.” 

In  his  Preface  to  the  Romans  Calvin  laid  down  the  golden 
rule,  that  “  it  is  the  first  business  of  an  interpreter  to  let  his 
author  say  what  he  does  say,  instead  of  attributing  to  him 
what  we  think  he  ought  to  say.”  Multitudes  of  previous 
writers — even  Hilary — had  said  something  of  the  same  kind, 
yet  scarcely  one  among  them  all  had  been  able  to  withstand 
the  sway  of  dogmatic  prepossessions.  Nor  was  Calvin  any 
exception.2  He  had  been  taught  much  by  the  experience  of 
life.  It  is  this  which  makes  his  Commentary  on  the  Psalms  a 
1  See  note  infra,  p.  472. 

See  liis  notes  on  John  i.  12,  where  he  makes  i^ovrrlav  mean  “  dignity,”  and 
the  shocking  note  on  “  Lead  us  not  into  temptation  ”  in  Luke  xi,  4. 


348 


Dogmatic  Bias. 

masterpiece  of  psychological  analysis.  He  called  the  Psalter 
“  an  anatomy  of  all  the  parts  of  the  soul ;  ”  and  just  as  Luther 
said  that  the  stricken  heart  and  the  troubled  conscience 
had  enabled  him  to  understand  St.  Paul,  so  Calvin 
described  the  advantages  which  he  had  gained  from  the 
combats  in  which  “  God  had  so  led  and  whirled  him  about  as 
to  bring  him  into  light  and  action  by  leaving  him  no  repose 
in  any  place  whatever.”  1  On  the  other  hand  the  determi¬ 
nation  not  to  he  disturbed  in  the  convictions  which  he  thus 
had  gained  has  undoubtedly  led  him  at  times  to  be  untrue  to 
his  own  exegetic  principles,  by  dragging  his  special  dogma 
into  passages  where  it  is  not  to  be  found,  and  by  putting  an 
unfair  gloss  on  others  which  tell  in  the  opposite  direction. 
One  flagrant  instance  may  suffice.  In  Joel  ii.  13,  he  is 
naturally  perplexed  by  the  phrase,  “  It  repenteth  Him  of  the 
evil,”  which  conflicts  with  his  favourite  idol  of  “  irreversible 
decrees.  How  does  he  meet  it  ?  “  This,”  he  says,  “  has 

reference  to  human  capacities.  Whatever  has  come  out  of 
the  mouth  of  God  ought  to  be  looked  at  in  the  light  of  an 
irreversible  decree.  But  meanwhile  God  often  threatens  us  con¬ 
ditionally ,  and  the  condition  must  be  understood  though  it 
is  not  expressed.  But  when  God  is  appeased,  and  relaxes  for 
us  the  punishment  which  had  been  already  in  some  respects 
( quodammodo )  decreed  to  us  as  far  as  outward  'words  are  concerned 
( secundum  extcrnun  verbum ),  then.  He  is  said  to  be  influenced 
by  repentance.”  This  is  nothing  more  or  less  than  the  argu¬ 
ment  of  Archbishop  Tillotson,  who  hoped  for  the  ultimate 
salvation  of  the  wicked  on  the  ground  that  God’s  decrees  are 
sometimes  reversible  and  conditional.  But  while  we  can 
understand  such  an  argument  in  the  mild  system  of  Tillotson, 
we  cannot  harmonise  it  with  the  inexorable  severity  of 
Calvinism.  On  the  very  next  page  Calvin  writes,  “  Scimus 
iram  Dei  grassari  usque  ad  ipsos  infantes. ”  But  if  God’s 
decrees  sometimes  depend  on  unexpressed  conditions  without 
any  hint  to  us  that  they  do  so — if  the  outward  utterance  is  to 

Luther  said  that  he  had  learnt  from  Ps.  118  that  three  things  taught 
theology — oratio,  meditatio,  temptcitio. 


349 


Views  of  Inspiration. 

be  regarded  as  an  irreversible  decree  while  that  which  cor¬ 
responds  to  it  is  variable  according  to  unknown  conditions — it 
is  strange  that  one  who  had  been  trained  as  a  jurist,  and  had 
been  the  pupil  of  Alciati,  should  have  failed  to  see  that  he  cut 
away  the  ground  under  the  clay  feet  of  his  own  system,  and 
that  the  decTetur/i  horribile  might,  on  his  own  confession,  be 
but  an  ostensible  threat,  an  accommodation  to  human  needs. 
Nor  is  this  the  only  instance  in  which  the  dogmatist  gets 
the  better  of  the  exegete,  because  the  exegete  had  failed  to 
grasp  the  progressiveness  of  revelation  and  the  external 
circumstances  of  age  and  relative  knowledge  by  which  it  is 
conditioned.1 

Such  comments  prepare  us  for  the  fact  that  in  spite  of  his 
logical  intellect,  Calvin  is  in  some  respects  more  loose  and 
inconsequent  in  his  views  of  inspiration  than  even  Luther 
was.  Like  all  the  Reformers  he  speaks  incessantly  of  the 
supreme  and  final  authority  of  Scripture.  Yet  he  leaves  his 
statements  as  though  they  were  incontrovertible  axioms,  and, 
not  considering  the  case  of  heathens,  for  instance,  or  of  un¬ 
believers,  has  furnished  no  argument  but  that  of  a  supposed 
self-evidence  by  which  the  supremacy  of  Scripture  can  be 
proved.2  The  Reformed  Churches  admitted  no  such  ques-  , 
tions  about  canonicity  as  those  which  Luther  had  discussed, 
for  in  their  forms  of  confession  they  enumerate  the  books 
which  form  the  Canon.3  Calvin  neither  insists  as  Luther 
did  on  the  relative  independence  of  Christian  truth ; 
nor  does  he  follow  Zwingli  in  drawing  a  distinction  be¬ 
tween  the  outer  and  the  inner  word,  the  written  Bible 
and  “ the  Bible  in  the  heart.”  Yet  if  he  held  that  Scrip¬ 
ture  flowed  from  the  very  mouth  of  God,4  he  gives  us  no 
explanation  of  his  own  admission  of  inaccuracies  in  Scrip- 
tui  e,  of  his  fiee  tone  of  criticism,6  of  his  almost  contemptuous 

1  See  Merx,  Joel,  433-435.  2  i.  7  §§1-4 

3  Conf.  Belg.  9,  ii.-iv.  ;  Gallic,  ii.  5  ;  Helvet.  i.  2  ;  Westmr.’  Conf  i  §  2 
art.  vi.  ;  Dorner,  i.  391. 

4  Instil,  i.  7,  §  5. 

5  See  his  notes  on  Matt,  xxvii.  9  ;  Acts  vii.  16,  &c. 

6  See  his  remarks  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  2  Peter,  and  John  viii  1  • 

1  John  ii.  14  ;  v.  7. 


His  Intolerance. 


350 

rejection  of  the  whole  sacrificial  and  ceremonial  law.  How, 
for  instance,  can  a  theory  of  supernatural  dictation  agree 
with  the  remark  that  the  notion  of  God  making  a  throne  of 
the  Mercy  Seat  was  “  a  crass  figment,”  from  which  even  a 
David  and  a  Hezekiah  were  not  free  ?  So  far  as  any  philo¬ 
sophical  view  is  concerned  of  the  relations  between  the  Old 
and  the  New  Testament  Calvin  must  be  regarded  as  distinctly 
retrogressive,  and  bis  defective  views  led  him  into  strange 
and  miserable  quagmires.  The  intolerance  which  stains  his 
name  is  directly  traceable  to  this  strange  mixture  of  letter- 
worship  with  independence.  Free  in  historical  criticism,  he 
is  as  rigorous  as  Melanchthon  in  the  dogmatic  treatment  of 
the  Old  Testament.  It  would  have  been  a  less  harmful 
error  if  Calvin  had  allegorised  the  whole  Mosaic  law  than  that 
he  should  have  accepted  the  imperfect  morality  of  the  days 
of  ignorance  as  a  rule  for  Christian  men.  But  he  stood  far 
below  Luther  in  making  no  distinction  between  different 
parts  of  the  Bible.  When  Bene,  Duchess  of  Ferrara,  daughter 
of  Louis  XII.,  had  in  a  letter  made  the  wise  remark  that 
David’s  example  in  hating  his  enemies  is  not  applicable  to  us, 
Calvin  curtly  and  sternly  answered  that  “  such  a  gloss  would 
upset  all  Scripture,”  that  even  in  his  hatred  David  is  an 
example  to  us  and  a  type  of  Christ,  and  “  should  we  presume 
to  set  up  ourselves  as  superior  to  Christ  in  sweetness  and 
humanity?”  It  is  strange  that  he  should  never  have 
thought  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount — “  It  was  said  to  them 
of  old  time,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  and  hate  thine 
enemy ;  but  I  say  unto  you,  Love  your  enemies.”  Doubt¬ 
less  indeed  he  would  have  found  some  subtle  means  of 
reconciling  Christ’s  plain  words  with  the  idolatry  of  his 
dogmatic  theory.  Theologians  in  all  ages  have  been  skilful  in 
letting  in  through  the  narrow  wicket  of  a  text  the  evil  notions 

1  Calvin  said  that  the  only  difference  between  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament 
was  ad  niodurn  administrationis,  not  ad  substantiam.  Instit.  ii.  11.  This 
became  the  ordinary  post- Reformation  view.  Bellarmine  called  the  doctrine 
of  the  Old  Testament  inchoate ,  not  perfect ;  but  Gerhard  replied,  “  Doctrina 
"Vet.  lest,  nequaquam  est  imperfecta  siquidem  eosdem  fundamentales  fidei 
articulos  tradit  quos  Christus  ct  Apostoli  repetunt  1  ”  See  Oehler,  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  Theology ,  i.  41  (E.  T. ). 


II is  Intoleran ce. 


351 


which  were  meant  to  be  kept  out  by  every  wall,  tower,  and 
fortress  of  the  whole  Christian  system.  Calvin,  honest  as  he 
meant  to  be,  found  the  same  fatal  facility  of  reading  into 
Scripture  what  he  wished  to  find  there.  If  he  did  not 
altogether  look  at  the  world  through  the  lurid  mist  which 
the  Anabaptists  had  raised  out  of  the  pages  of  the  Apoca- 
typse>  yet  from  his  failure  to  apprehend  the  full  force  of  the 
new  commandment  he  ruthlessly  burnt  Servetus,1  recom¬ 
mended  persecution  to  the  Protector  Somerset,2  and  raised  no 
voice  to  aid  the  miserable  and  exiled  congregation  of  John 
a  Lasco.  Dogma  reacts  on  character,  and  Grotius  rightly 
said  that  Calvinists  for  the  most  part  were  as  severe  as  they 
imagined  God  to  be  to  the  greater  part  of  the  human  race. 
Not  in  the  Inquisition  only,  but  no  less  in  the  acerbities  of 
Puritanism,  in  the  ruthlessness  of  the  Pilgrim  Fathers,  in 
the  perennial  ferocity  of  sects,  in  the  constant  recrudescence 
of  intolerance  and  persecution,  in  the  unscrupulous  malice, 
factions,  and  intrigues  of  living  partisans,  and  in  the  injuries 
thus  inflicted  on  the  cause  of  religion,  we  see  the  fatal  conse¬ 
quences  of  the  mental  confusion  which  made  no  distinction 
between  the  authority  of  the  two  Testaments.  It  is  the 
opposite  extreme  to  that  of  Marcion  s  Antitheses,  but  an 
extreme  hardly  less  perilous.3  Neither  Melanchthon,  nor 
even  Luther,  though  he  was  averse  to  employing  force  in  the 
cause  of  religion,  had  learnt  the  chasm  which  separates  the 
Elijah-spirit  and  the  Christ-spirit.  The  worst  stain  upon 
their  names — the  concession  to  the  bigamous  marriage  of 
Philip  of  Hesse — arose,  not  from  want  of  courage,  but  from 

1  It  is  usual  to  defend  this  disgraceful  and  grossly  illegal  act  by  the  sanction 
of  Melanchthon,  but  Beza  tells  us  (Fite  Calvini,  a.d.  1550)  that  even  in  his 
own  day  it  was  widely  and  severely  condemned.  Martinus  Bellius  in  his 
Farrago  showed  that  not  only  the  best  Reformers,  but  even  the  Fathers  had 
opposed  the  capital  punishment  of  heretics.  The  sentence  about  Servetus  in 
Calvin’s  letter  to  Farel  (Feb.  1546),  “Si  venerit,  modo  valcat  mea  auctoritas 
vivum  exire  non  patiar shows  him  at  his  very  worst. 

2  In  a  letter  dated  Oct.  22,  1548. 

3  The  utterances  of  Reformation  theology  on  this  important  subject  are  quite 
unsatisfactory,  and  merely  swim  in  the  air.  Quenstedt  talks  of  the  Old 
Testament  as  a  “  perpetua  norma  fidci  ac  vitae  in  universd  Eccletna”  and 
Hollaz,  and  the  Fur  mala  Coneordiac  vaguely  extol  the  Old  Testament,  and 
irrelevantly  quote  l*s.  cxix.  105 ;  Gal.  i.  8. ‘  See  Hase,  p.  570. 


The  Old  Testament. 


confused  notions  about  the  Old  Testament.  Calvin  would 
hardly  have  fallen  into  this  error,  for  he  had  no  esteem  for 
the  Levi  tic  law ;  but  unfortunately  he  could  not  see  that  the 
actions  of  Gideon,  and  Jael,  and  even  David,  furnish  no  fit  ideals 
for  the  Christian  moralist.  Intolerance  has  been  the  curse 
and  the  ruin  of  Calvinism,  and  has  drowned  its  dogmas  in 
the  general  abhorrence  of  mankind.  It  is  at  once  a  blunder 
and  a  crime  : — a  blunder,  for  as  Luther  said,  “  Heresy  is  a 
spiritual  thing  which  cannot  be  hewn  with  any  axe,  or 
burned  with  any  fire,  or  drowned  with  any  water  ”  a  crime, 
because  as  the  Emperor  Maximilian  says,  it  attempts  to  storm 
the  conscience  of  man,  which  is  the  very  citadel  of  heaven. 
The  humble  minister  in  Old  Mortality  spoke  deeper  wisdom 
than  the  world-famous  Reformer.  “  By  what  law,”  says 
Henry  Morton  to  Balfour  of  Burley,  “  would  you  justify  the 
atrocity  you  would  commit  ?  ”  “  If  thou  art  ignorant  of  it, 

replied  Burley,  “  thy  companion  is  well  aware  of  the  law 
which  gave  the  men  of  Jericho  to  the  sword  of  Joshua  the 
son  of  Nun.”  “Yes,  but  we,”  answered  the  divine,  “live 
under  a  better  dispensation,  which  instructeth  us  to  return 
good  for  evil,  and  to  pray  for  those  who  despitefully  use  us 
and  persecute  us.”  Even  Augustine— in  his  later  years  the 
fatal  patron  of  religious  persecution,  and  thereby  the  cause 
of  unnumbered  miseries  to  the  Church  of  God — even 
Augustine  said — though  neither  he  nor  any  other  interpreter 
for  a  thousand  years  rightly  applied  the  force  of  the  remark 
— “  Distingue  tcmpora  et  concordabis  Scripturas” 1 

8.  But  whatever  may  have  been  the  faults  and  limitations  of 
the  expositors  of  the  Reformation,  their  very  enemies  could 
not  deny  that  they  had  made  a  greater  advance  in  the  inter¬ 
pretation  of  Scripture  than  had  been  made  during  many 
previous  centuries.  “Merciful  God  !”  exclaimed  Flacius,  “  I 
say  it  with  grief  and  groaning,  almost  from  the' very  times  of 
Christ  down  to  this  age  of  ours  how  has  nothing  less  been 

1  The  indifference  to  hermeneutics  is  one  chief  source  of  Calvin’s  weakness. 
He  says  “that  it  does  not  much  matter  when  Jonah  or  Obadiah  lived, ’’which 
may  be  true  enough  for  the  homilist,  hut  is  singularly  false  for  the  exegete. 
See  Merx,  Joel ,  428-444. 


Freedom  and  Truth. 


353 


the  aim  of  theologians  than  the  clear  explanation  of  the  very 
word,  sense,  and  text  of  the  sacred  writings  !  ” 1  “  We  may 

most  truly  declare,”  says  Calvin,  “  that  we  have  brought  more 
light  to  bear  on  the  understanding  of  Scripture  than  all  the 
authors  who  have  sprung  up  amongst  Christians  since  the 
rise  of  the  Papacy ;  nor  do  they  themselves  venture  to  rob 
us  of  this  praise.”  2 

Yes !  to  the  Reformers  was  fulfilled  once  more  the  old 
promise,  “  Ye  shall  know  the  truth,  and  the  truth  shall  make 
you  free.”  Fragments  of  the  Bible  had  been  used  to  shut 
men  in  the  prison-house  of  human  dogmas,  and  to  bind  their 
souls  in  the  chains  of  religious  despotism.  In  the  true 
knowledge  of  the  Bible  as  a  whole,  lay  the  force  which 
delivered  them.  It  was  the  Voice  of  the  Living  Spirit  of 
God  speaking  to  them  in  Scripture,  and  in  the  heart,  which 
enabled  men  to  burst  the  gates  of  brass,  and  smite  the  bars 
of  iron  in  sunder.  So  it  has  been ;  so  it  will  ever  be.  Chris¬ 
tianity  has  been  perpetuated,  far  less  through  the  letter  of 
its  records  than  through  “  the  Apostolic  succession  of  inspired 
personalities ;  ”  3  of  Prophets  who  have  stood,  if  need  be. 

1  Calvin,  Antid.  in  Cone.  Trident,  sess.  iv.  Bacon  says  of  English  theolo' 
gians  that  44  if  the  choice  and  best  observations  which  have  been  made  dis- 
persedly  in  our  English  sermons  .  .  had  been  set  down  in  a  continuance,  it 
would  be  the  best  work  in  divinity  that  hath  been  written  since  the  Apostles’ 
times.”  The  licence  of  allegorising  seems  to  be  somewhat  alien  from  the 
practical  good  sense  of  the  English  character,  for  it  has  never  been  found 
among  our  great  divines.  They  are  content  to  admit  its  theoretical  validity 
(as  even  Locke  does  on  Rom.  iii.  25  ;  v.  14).  Such  books  as  Bibliotheca 
Biblica  of  Parker  (1720),  Vertue’s  Parallels ,  Reach’s  Barred  Typology,  &c., 
have  never  been  accepted  as  having  any  authority.  Even  Jeremy  Taylor  says, 
‘4  Of  these  things  there  is  no  beginning  and  no  end,  no  certain  principles,  and 
no  good  conclusion.”  Sermon  on  Ministerial  Duties.  “This  (the  work  of 
drawing  out  mystic  meanings),  to  speak  freely  my  opinion,”  says  Waterland, 
“  appears  to  be  a  work  of  such  a  kind  as  scarce  one  in  a  thousand  will  be  fit 
to  be  trusted  with”  (Pref.  to  Scripture  Vindicated). 

2  Comm,  in  Joel,  iii.  1.  See  some  remarks  on  the  subject  in  Hooker,  Feel. 
Pol.  111.  viii.  §§  16-18.  How  strikingly  this  was  the  case  with  Dean  Colet, 
may  be  seen  in  Mr.  Lupton’s  editions  of  his  Commentaries,  and  in  Seebolnu’s 
Oxford  Reformers ,  ch.  ii. 

3  “  The  form  in  which  the  Divine  Spirit  accomplishes  every  important 
change  in  the  world  is  that  of  gifted  men,  by  whom  He  diffuses  His  own 
ideas  and  worksphem  out.  And  thus  the  gifted  man  becomes  the  mediator  of 
the  Divine  Spirit,  in  behalf  of  those  who  are  not  served  at  first-hand  by  these 
ideas.  He  knows  himself  to  be  this  by  two  signs  ;  the  one  his  consciousness 
of  self-sacrificing  enthusiasm  ;  the  other  his  consciousness  of  originative 
power.” — J.  H.  Fichte,  Spck.  Theol.,  p.  655. 


A  A 


354 


New  Pentecosts. 


alone  against  priests,  and  against  the  world  ;  of  men  who 
have  flashed  into  dead  generations  the  electric  spark  of 
truth.  Churches  need  many  Pentecosts,  and  many  Resur¬ 
rections.  And  God  grants  them.  Sooner  or  later  He 
shakes  down  from  their  flimsy  pedestals  the  gilded  idols 
which  men  set  up  for  themselves  to  worship,  and  delivers 
His  children  from  the  burning  fiery  furnaces  kindled  for 
them  by  those  who  would  slay  them  in  His  name.  Sooner 
or  later  He  bids  His  lightnings  stab  through  the  dim  but 
irreligious  light  of  voluntary  illusion,  with  which  men  swathe 
their  own  imaginations.  He  did  so  in  the  sixteenth  century. 
He  did  so  in  the  eighteenth  century.  He  will  do  so  again  in 
the  nineteenth,  or  in  the  twentieth,  and  if  need  be  again  and  yet 
again.  He  will  raise  new  Prophets  when  the  old  have  been 
slain  or  silenced  ;  and  those  new  Prophets  shall,  like  the 
Reformers,  lead  us  back  once  more  to  simplicity  from 
artificiality,  to  truth  from  tradition,  to  the  Word  of  God  from 
the  inventions  of  men. 


“  Man  niinmt  fremde  Glossen  aus  der  Heiligen  Schrift  dass  es  zu 
erbarmen  ist.” — Tauler. 

u  Majestas  tbeologica  quam  multi  pluris  faciunt  quam  Christum.” — 
Erasmus  to  Luther  (Epp.  i.  427). 

“  We  should  not  interpret  the  Scriptures  by  the  Creeds,  but  the 
Creeds  by  the  Scriptures.” — Spener,  Bedenken ,  iii.  478. 

“  Tous  les  scholasticismes  me  rendent  douteux  de  ce  qu’ils  demontrent, 
parce  qu’au  lieu  de  chercher  ils  affirm ent  des  le  debut.  Leur  objet  est 
de  construire  les  retranchements  autour  d’un  prejuge,  et  non  dedecouvrir 
la  verite.” — Amiel,  Journal  Intime ,  ii.  136. 


LECTURE  VII. 


POST-REFORMATION  EPOCH. 

Questionings  and  disputes  of  words,  whereof  cometh  envy,  strife,  railings 
evil  surmisings,  wranglings. 1  Tim.  vi.  4.  & 

If  the  slow  but  general  and  permanent  adoption  of  prin¬ 
ciples  by  the  Christian  world  be  any  proof  of  their  correctness, 
it  must  be  admitted  that  the  Reformers  gave  a  mighty 
impulse  to  the  science  of  Scriptural  interpretation.  They 
made  the  Bible  accessible  to  all ;  they  tore  away  and 
scattered  to  the  winds  the  dense  cobwebs  of  arbitrary  tradi¬ 
tion  which  had  been  spun  for  so  many  centuries  over  every 
book,  and  every  text  of  it ;  they  put  the  Apocrypha  on  an 
altogether  lower  level  than  the  sacred  books ;  they  carefully 
studied  the  original  languages;  they  developed  the  plain,  ^ 
literal  sense;  they  used  it  for  the  strengthening  and  refreshing 
of  the  spiritual  life. 

“  Thus  truth  was  multiplied  on  truth  ;  the  world 
Like  one  great  garden  showed, 

And  through  the  wreaths  of  floating  dark  upcurled 
Rare  sunrise  flowed. 

And  Freedom  reared  in  that  august  sunrise 
Her  beautiful  bold  brow, 

\Y  hen  rites  and  forms  before  her  burning  eyes 
Melted  like  snow.” 

W  e  might  have  hoped  that  the  splendid  progress  would 
Lave  been  continuous,  but,  alas,  the  experience  of  mankind  has 
made  us  only  too  familiar  with  the  spectacle  of  arrest  and  of 
retrogression  in  the  history  of  thought.  Imperfection  and 
failure  are  stamped  on  all  human  efforts,  on  all  human 
institutions.  Toilsome  and  incomplete  is  all  that  men 


358 


A  Cheerless  Period. 


accomplish.  The  Epigoni  of  the  Reformation  were  far 
feebler  and  less  large-hearted  than  their  mighty  predecessors. 
During  the  space  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  the  torch 
burned  dim,  and  it  was  only  rekindled  into  brightness  by 
those  who  were  at  first  denounced  as  renegades  and  heretics, 
but  who,  in  the  increasing  purpose  of  the  ages,  were  the 
true  heirs  of  Erasmus  and  of  Luther. 

I.  In  spite  of  much  theological  labour  and  activity,1  the 
peiiod  at  which  we  are  about  to  glance  in  the  history  of 
exegesis  is  very  cheerless.  It  was  a  period  in  which  liberty 
was  exchanged  for  bondage ;  universal  principles  for  beggarly 
elements,  truth  for  dogmatism;  independence  for  tradition; 
religion  for  system.  A  living  reverence  for  Scripture  was 
supeiseded  by  a  dead  theory  of  inspiration.  Genial  orthodoxy 
gave  place  to  iron  uniformity,  and  living  thought  to  contro- 
veisial  dialectics.2  The  Reformation  had  broken  the  leaden 
sceptre  of  the  old  Scholasticism,  but  the  Protestant  Churches 
introduced  a  new  Scholasticism  whose  rod  was  of  iron.  The 
Sentences  of  Peter  Lombard  and  the  Summa  of  Thomas 
Aquinas  were  built  on  the  Bible,  Tradition,  and  the  Fathers. 
The  Bible  only  was  the  professed  basis  of  the  loci  Communes 
of  Chemnitz,  the  Loci  Theologici  of  Gerhard,  the  Theologia 
Didactico-polemica  of  Quenstedt,  and  the  Sy sterna  locorum  of 
Calovius.  The  Reformed  dogmatists  vainly  fancied  that  their 
building  would  be  eternal,  but  it  was  built  on  party  Creeds, 
not  on  Christ,  and  therefore  it  has  crumbled  into  the  dust. 
The  Piotestant  Churches  bit  and  devoured  one  another,  and 
suffered  terribly  in  consequence.  “The  Reformation  soon 
parted  company  with  free  learning,  turned  its  back  upon 
culture,  held  out  no  hand  to  awaking  science,3  and  lost  itself 
in  a  maze  of  theological  controversies.” 


at  tiria  ?frm3n  universities  and  their  celebrated  scholars 

at  this  epoch  see  Tholuck’s  Das  Akadem.  Leben,  ii.  15-202,  and  a  useful 
summary  m  Dorner,  Hist,  of  Trot.  Thcol.  ii.  103-108 

'’J*  L*hr*  ,Luther>  P*  “  Man  war  aus  der  Region  der  Lebens- 
h  f  L  ■,  e;5  HeU-bimgenden  Glaubens,  m  die  Eisregion  des  Verstandes 

getieten  .  .  .  des  schematisirenden  und  reflectirenden  Verstandes.” 

ness attacks  on  Kepler  and  Descartes,  and  Calovius’s  declaration 
that  the  revolution  of  the  earth  round  the  sun  was  “contrary  to  Scripture 


Creed- worship. 


350 


The  whole  of  this  epoch  was  retarded,  and  its  labour 
vitiated,  by  a  threefold  curse :  the  curse  of  tyrannous  con- 
fessionalism ;  the  curse  of  exorbitant  systems  ;  the  curse  of 
contentious  bitterness. 

1.  It  was  the  age  of  Creeds,  Symbols,  Confessions,  theological 
systems,  rigid  formulae.  At  one  time  almost  every  important 
city  or  principality  had  its  own  favourite  creed.  There  was 
the  Corpus  Pomeranicum ,  the  Corpus  Prutenicum ,  Brandebur- 
gicum,  and  so  forth.  Even  Liineburg  had  its  Corpus  Wil- 
helminuw,,  and  Brunswick- Wolfenbiittel  its  Corpus  Julium. 
Besides  these  minor  statements  of  belief,  there  were,  among 
many  others,  in  1529,  the  Articles  of  Marburg ;  in  1580,  the 
Confessio  Tetrapolitana  and  the  Confession  of  Augsburg ; 
in  1536,  the  Wittenberg  Concord  ;  in  1537,  the  Articles  of 
Schmalkald ;  in  1566,  the  Confessio  PLelvetica  Posterior ;  in 
1580,  the  triumph  of  rigid  Lutheranism  in  the  Formula 
Concordiae ;  in  1562,  the  Thirty-nine  Articles;  in  1613,  the 
Westminster  Confession.1  Men  fell  into  the  error  of  supposing 
that  unity  could  be  secured  by  a  nominal  uniformity,  or  con¬ 
troversies  precluded — instead  of  created  and  multiplied — by 
the  minuteness  of  doctrinal  formulae.2  These  symbols  differ 
toio  coelo  from  the  early  professions  of  faith — the  Apostles’ 
Creed  and  the  Nicene  Creed — which,  in  spite  of  all  contro¬ 
versies,  amply  sufficed  for  the  first  eight  centuries  of  Christians. 
They  fill  many  dreary  and  often  highly  disputable  pages. 
The  Consensus  repetitus  formally  repudiated  the  “heresy”  of 
supposing  that  the  Apostles’  Creed  contained  everything  neces¬ 
sary  for  salvation,  or  that  the  Trinity  was  not  clearly  revealed 
in  the  Old  Testament.  Now  the  Vine  of  the  Church  cannot 

a  phrase  which  has  been  applied  to  almost  every  scientific  discovery  in  turn. 
See  Brewster’s  Martyrs  of  Science,  pp.  2,  52,  76,  103. 

1  There  were  also  the  Confessio  Belgica ,  •  Gallicana,  Hafnica,  Marchica, 
Saxonica,  and  Scotica. 

-  The  protest  of  Milton  is  characteristic  in  its  energy  and  manliness.  He 
speaks  in  the  Areopagitica  (1644)  of  “  planting  one  faith  now  in  the  Convoca¬ 
tion  House,  and  another  while  in  the  Chapel  at  'Westminster;  where  all  the 
faith  and  religion  which  shall  there  be  canonised  is  not  sufficient  without 
plain  convincement  and  the  charity  of  patient  instruction,  to  supple  the  least 
bruise  of  conscience,  to  edify  the  meanest  Christian  who  desires  to  walk  in 
the  spirit  and  not  in  the  letter  of  human  trust,  for  all  the  number  of  voices 
that  can  be  there  made.” 


360 


Protestant  Scholasticism. 


grow  in  the  dusty  and  blighting  soil  of  acrimonious  theology. 
God  has  left  many  truths  in  the  penumbra  which  alone  suits 
our  finite  capacities.  The  Post-Reformation  Churches  refused 
to  i  ecognise  how  large  a  part  of  theological  definition  belongs 
solely  to  the  unceitam  and  unessential.  Their  dogmas  were 
based  not  upon  secure  evidence,  but  on  dominant  authority, 
and  it  was  theiefore  necessary  to  enforce  them  by  anathema 
and  banishment,  yes,  even  by  axe  and  stake.1  This  terrorism 
of  Formulae  prevailed  throughout  all  the  Churches.  The 
Formula  Concordiae  swayed  the  Lutherans;  the  Synod 
of  Fort  was  supposed  to  have  uttered  the  last  word  for  the 
Reformed  Churches;  the  Council  of  Trent  for  Romanists; 
even  for  Socinians  the  Racovian  Catechism.  These  were 
more  or  less  imposed  upon  men’s  consciences  with  the  syllo¬ 
gism  of  violence.  The  world  forgot  the  memorable  saying  of 
Luther  that  thoughts  are  toll-free.”  The  consequence  was 
a  total  loss  of  originality,  a  complete  arrest  of  progress,  the 
ciushmg  of  spontaneous  thought  under  the  dead  weight  of 
petiified  dogmas.  Sterile  repetition,  narrow  scrupulosity, 
burning  recriminations,  religious  factiousness  everywhere  pre¬ 
vailed.  The  very  names  which  different  writers  have  given 
to  this  period  indicate  the  impression  left  upon  the  mind 
by  its  dreary  history.  It  has  been  called  by  no  less  than 
seven  different  historians  the  age  of  “  Symbololatry,”  of 
“  creed-bondage,”  of  “  Lutheran  patristics,”  of  “  Protestant 
scholasticism,”  of  “  Dogmatic  traditionalism,”  of  “  dead  ortho¬ 
doxy,”  of  “  theorising  system,”  of  “  ecclesiastico-confessional,” 
or  “  polemico-dogmatic  interpretation.” 2  The  Council  of 
Trent  practically  reduces  exegesis  to  a  register  of  non-existent 
unanimity.  It  puts  forth  no  authorised  commentary,  nor 
even  any  hermeneutic  theory,  and  it  relies  upon  a  version 
which  is  full  of  errors.  The  Greek  Church,  laying  down  the 
rule  that  those  only  can  interpret  who  can  enter  into  “  the 


Fritzsche,  Tteuss,  Kurz.  The  old  rules,  “Nihil  contr 
contra  Eccleaiain,”  became  “Nihil  contra  Symbolos. 


Theological  Folios.  361 

depths  of  the  Spirit/’  refers  to  the  faulty  LXX.,  and  specially 
forbids  the  reading  of  certain  parts  of  the  Old  Testament.1 
Protestant  Schoolmen  practically  bound  themselves  by  the 
limits  of  their  current  confessions.  Each  Church  of  Chris¬ 
tendom  had  its  own  Version,  and  its  own  Canon,  and  its  own 
exegetic  lules,  and  not  one  of  them  lays  down  any  test  of  the 
differences  between  the  value  of  the  Old  and  of  the  New 
Testament,  or  furnishes  any  intelligible  hint  as  to  how  we 
are  to  distinguish  between  relative  and  absolute  truths. 
Ihe  Protestant  theologians  reasoned  upon  a  priori  assump¬ 
tions,  and  proved  once  more  that  “  Men  only  need  to  bring 
to  the  Bible  sufficiently  strong  prepossessions,  sufficiently 
fixed  opinions,  to  have  them  reflected  back  in  all  the  glamour 
of  infallible  authority.”2 

2.  As  a  consequence  of  the  bondage  to  Formulae  this  was 
also  the  age  of  huge  books  of  theology,  which  were  joroduced 
in  astonishing  numbers,  and  of  which  the  majority  now  sleep 
m  the  dust  of  oblivion.  These  system-building  folios,  to 
which  the  Summa  is  light  reading,  seemed  ever  to  grow  in 
size.  F or  some  time  they  followed  what  is  called  the  local  or 
porismatic  method,  that  is,  they  began  by  the  statement  of 
loci  or  theological  commonplaces,  which  were  inordinately 
expanded  with  precise  definitions  and  harmonisations  into 
symmetrical  completeness.3  Melanchthon’s  Loci  were  the 
development  of  Fectures  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 
Luther  characteristically  said  that  they  were  “  worthy  of  a  place 
m  the  Canon  of  Scripture,”  and  Cochlaeus  sarcastically  called 
thi  m  tho  Aik 01  an  of  Lutheranism.  ’  They  kept  growing 
Irom  1521  to  1543,  till  they  more  and  more  resembled  a  book 
of  the  Schoolmen.4  Calvin’s  Institutio  began  in  1536  with 

•  /r'0Sl/hei  (  on fessio,  Qu.  1  (Kirnmel),  Monumenta  Fidei  Eccles.  Orient. 

1#  3  n,:  ...  .  2  Beard,  Hilbert  Lectures,  p.  192. 

i  .  porisniatic  method  consisted  in  the  abstraction  of  dogmatic  results 
thus  m  Baldwin’s  Commentary  on  the  Pauline  Epistles ,  “ Multiplices  com- 
■morufactioncs  e  textu  eruuntur.  ”  This  method  was  superseded  by  the  analytic 
alter  the  example  set  by  Calixtus. 

L.  Simon  savs,  a  little  too  severely,  of  Melanchthon’s  exegesis,  “  On  n’y 
\oit  que  des  disputes.  .  .  11  faut  lire  beaucoup  pour  trouver  quelque  chose 
qm  regard e  1  auteur  qu’il  fait  profession  d’interpreter  ”  (H.  Critique  .  .  . 

’  •  S  •  J% 


362 


Controversies. 


six  chapters,  and  ended  in  1559  with  eighty.  The  Loci  of 
John  Gerhard  (1610-1622),  which  are  regarded  as  the  palmary 
work  of  Lutheran  theology,  originally  occupied  nine  quarto 
volumes,  and  were  developed  into  twenty  by  later  writeis. 
Quenstedt,  “the  book-keeper  of  Lutheran  orthodoxy,’  Hutter, 
the  most  slavish  upholder  of  symbolical  traditionalism, 
Calovius  (1655-1677),  in  the  twelve  quarto  volumes  of  his 
Systema,  Dannhauer  in  his  Hodosophia,  Baier  in  his  Coi n- 
pcndmm  Thcoloyictc ,  and  hosts  of  other  writers,  all  base  then 
labours  on  the  assumption  that  the  scheme  of  salvation  can 
be  set  forth  m  its  minutest  details  with  Aristotelian  dialectics. 
They  started  with  a  belief  falsified  by  the  whole  history  of 
the  Jewish  and  Christian  Churches  alike,  that  the  Bible 
contains  a  consistent  and  symmetrical  system  of  doctrine, 
which  is  complete  and  necessary  and  self-evident,  and  can 
be  extracted  from  it  by  ordinary  reasoning. 

3.  As  regards  the  third  great  curse  of  this  period, 
dogmatic  inflexibility,  unsoftened  by  Christian  love,  led 
to  contentiousness,  which  regarded  trifling  matters  as  im¬ 
portant,  and  too  often  esteemed  the  weightiest  as  trifles. 
The  air  was  full  of  burning  questions  which  have  long 
ago  “  burnt  themselves  out.”  1  There  was  the  Lutheran  ana 
Beformed  controversy,  the  Flacianist  and  Philippist  contro¬ 
versy,  the  Antinomian  controversy,  the  Osiandrian  contro¬ 
versy,  the  Majorist  controversy,  the  Ubiquitarian  controversy, 
the  Synergistic  controversy,  the  Adiaphoristic  controversy,  the 
Crypto-Calvinistic  controversy,  the  Armiman  and  Gomanst 
controversy,  the  Calixtine  or  Syncretistic  conti  oversy,  the 
Kenotic  controversy,  the  Bathmann  controversy,  the  Pietist 
controversy,  the  Amyraldian  controversy,  the  Barg  conti  oveisy, 
the  Huber  controversy,  and  many  more.2  In  the  French 
Church  there  were  the  discussions  about  Pajonism  and 


1  Dorner,  ii.  1.  ,  .  .  ,  , , 

2  A  brief  sketch  of  these  controversies  which  so  unprofitably  occupied  tne 

last  half  of  the  sixteenth  century  is  given  by  Kurz ,  Hist,  of  the  Christian 
Church  pp.  112-121  (E.  T.).  See  too  Schliisselberg,  Haereticorum  Catalogue 
(Frankfort,  1597-1599),  which  Frank  calls  “Das  Arsenal  zu  diesen  nachre- 
formatorisclien  Streitigkeiten. 


Religious  Factiousness.  303 

Jansenism  and  Quietism;  in  the  English  Church  about 
Quakerism  and  Semi-Socinianism ;  in  the  Dutch  and  Swiss 
Churches  about  Calvinism  and  Arminianism ;  in  the  Lutheran 
Churches  about  Mysticism  and  Humanism.1  Many  of  these 
controversies  were  waged  with  a  fierceness  in  proportion  to 
the  entire  doubtfulness  of  the  question  at  stake.2  An  age  of 
egoism,  of  party  spirit— of  what  St.  Paul  calls  epideia— must 
always  produce  false  interpretation.  There  never  was  an 
epoch  in  which  men  were  so  much  occupied  in  discovering 
each  other’s  errors,  or  in  which  they  called  each  other  by  so 
many  opprobrious  names.  Deutschmann  of  Halle  (1695) 
charged  the  gentle  and  holy  Spener  with  264  errors,  and  the 
Wittenberg  Faculty  charged  him  with  283.3  Carpzov  called 
him  a  procella  ecclesiae”  and  Fecht  all  but  denied  his  salva¬ 
tion.4  Loscher  in  Dresden  published  an  an ti-pietistic  journal  in 
thirty-one  volumes.  The  University  of  Wittenberg  in  1655 
endeavoured  to  carry  a  Consensus  repetitus  fidei  vere 
Luther  anae,  which  enumerated  eighty-eight  errors  of  Calixtus 
and  the  Syncretists.  Religion  was  cast  by  some  evil  spirit 
into  a  paroxysm  of  theological  condemnations.5  John  Arndt, 
the  Fenelon  of  Lutheranism,”  15  was  accused  by  his  colleague 
Denecke,  and  other  Lutheran  zealots,  of  “  Papistry,  Monkery, 
Calvinism,  Pelagianism,  Osiandrianism,  Flacianism,  Schwenk- 
feldiamsm,  Weigelianism,  Paracelsism,  Alchemy,”  and  other 
enormities.7  Men  were  separatists  (Stop/foi/rev)  and  Pharisees, 
and  therefore  they  could  not  keep  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in 
the  bond  of  peace.  They  read  the  Bible  by  the  unnatural 


*  .Rom.  ii.  8  ;  Lange,  Grundriss,  p.  3. 

t  *,  7.erzfI.Tt  sicJl  in  eine  kleinliche  Polemik;  die  ganze  theologische 

nteratur  dieiit;  lhrem  Jnteresse,  iiberall  ein  lauernder  Yerdacht  der  auf  iedes 
rmbedachte  Wort,  fahndet,  &c.  Frank,  Gesch.  d.  prot.  Med.  i.  92.  See  too 
Witte,  Memoriae  Theologorum  (1674).  0 

tblf1"/)!16  ^!Lr7ftluth^ische  Vorstellung.  Happily  Spener  was  able  to  say 
mat  the  attacks  of  bis  enemies  had  never  given  him  a  sleepless  night.” 
r  edit,  De  Beatitudine  Mortuorum. 

5  “  Un  des  cdtes  les  plus  faux  de  cette  scolastique,  c’etait  de  chercher  et  de 
tiouver  partout  des  erreurs.  Nous  avons  de  ces  enumerations  d’erreurs  qui 
remplissent  des  volumes,  et  souvent  parmi  ces  pretendues  erreurs  condamnees, 
U  y  a  de  tres  bonnes  choses  (Renan,  Le  Judalsme). 

Author  of  IFahres  Christenthum. 

Kurz,  ii.  107  ;  see  Y  ildenhahn,  J.  Arndt ,  ein  Zeitbild ,  1847. 


364 


Golov. 


glare  of  theological  hatred.1  They  “  imposed  the  senses  of  men 
upon  the  words  of  God,  the  special  senses  of  men  upon  the 
general  words  of  God,  and  forced  them  upon  men’s  consciences 
together  under  the  equal  penalty  of  death  and  damnation. 
Flacius  Illyricus,  a  passionate  and  determined  controver¬ 
sialist,  became  a  very  thorn  in  the  side  of  Melanchthon,  and,  in 
spite  of  the  merits  of  his  Clavis,  his  Ccdcdogus  testium,  and  his 
share  in  the  Magdeburg  centuries,  we  can  hardly  except  him 
from  the  blame  of  bitter  uncharitableness.2  Of  another 
theologian  of  this  epoch — Osiander — Tholuck  says  “that  the 
Holy  Spirit  seems  to  have  appeared  to  him  in  the  form 
rather  of  a  raven  than  of  a  dove ;  ’  and  of  another  Myslenta 
that  he  was  “a  volcano  constantly  vomiting  fire  and  mud.”  Both 
remarks  are  applicable  to  Abraham  Calov  (t  1686),  in  whose 
person  the  seventeenth  century  produced  a  man  of  stupendous 
diligence  and  wide  learning,  but  the  very  type  of  a  bitter 
dogmatist.  He  is  said  to  have  daily  uttered  the  perverse 
prayer,  Iingjle  une,  Deus ,  odio  JiccereticoTUTTi.  Alas  !  the  hale- 
fires  of  religious  animosity  need  not  to  he  fanned  into  fiercer 
fame  by  the  pure  breath  of  prayer.  If  the  story  be  true, 
the  spirit  of  hatred  was  granted  him  by  way  of  punish¬ 
ment,  and  the  hatred  was  often  poured  out  upon  men  ten 
times  less  heretical  than  himself.  He  was  a  horn  heresy- 
hunter,  one  of  those  other  people’s  bishops  (aWorp logit [a ko'jtol) 
who  think  it  their  special  mission  to  take  in  charge  the 
orthodoxy  of  all  their  fellow  men.  He  flew  to  the  attack  ol 
everybody  who  differed  from  his  own  confessional  standard. 
Luther  was  his  “Megalander”  and  the  Lutheran  sym¬ 
bols  his  standard  of  infallibility.  He  wrote  no  less  than 
twenty-eight  controversial  pamphlets.  The  very  titles  ol  his 
hooks,  Mataeologia  papistica,  Socinianismus  profligcitus,  Theses 
de  Labadismo,  jinti-Boelvmius,  JJiscussio  controversiarum,  aie 

1  See  a  disgraceful  scene  described  at  Schliisselberg’s  examination  for  bis 
M.A.  degree,  which  ended  in  the  sentence  “  Nunc  anathema  pronuntiamus 
ac  te  tamquam  diaboli  vivum  organum  totis  pectoribus  exseeramur.  Guttmann, 
Annal.  d.  Universitat  zu  Wittenberg,  i.  153-155.  _ 

2  The  judgment  pronounced  on  him  by  Camerarius  ( Vit.  Melanchth.  clxxxn. ) 
is  very  severe.  See  too  Planck,  Prot.  Lehrbegriff,  and  Maitland  s  Letters  to 
King. 


365 


Polemical  Fury. 

menacing  with  antagonism.  His  Systema,  in  twelve  quarto 
volumes,  is  “  a  ponderous  engine  of  war  against  Calixtus  ” 
His  Biblia  illustrata,  in  four  volumes  (1672),  turned  the 
sacred  book  into  a  heap  of  controversial  missiles  against 
Grotius,  and  its  very  title  was  a  challenge.1  This  fury  for 
polemics  is  the  invariable  result  of  a  dead  and  formal  theology. 
It  defends  Christianity  in  the  spirit  of  Antichrist,  and 
turns  the  words  of  Eternal  Life  into  an  excuse  for  eternal 
litigation.  During  this  prevalence  of  sectarian  contentious¬ 
ness,  the  Universities  of  North  Germany  showed  few  signs 
of  vitality  and  none  of  progress.2  The  Gospel  of  Peace 
became  in  such  hands  a  war  of  words.  Dogmas  were 
orthodox,  but  spirituality  was  extinguished.  Theology  was 
tiiumphant,  but  love  was  quenched.3  Science  was  reduced 
to  impotence.  The  “  Analogy  of  Faith/'  and  the  “  Analogy 
of  Scripture/'  were  made  the  pretext  for  regarding  the  Bible 
as  a  sort  of  quartz-bed,  in  which  was  to  be  found  the  occasional 
gold  of  a  proof-text.  Those  passages  were  chiefly  dwelt 
upon  which  could  be  most  usefully  applied  or  misapplied 
for  controversial  purposes.  The  Creeds  were  demonstrated, 
the  Christ  was  forgotten.4  Sometimes  the  theologic  system 
is  deduced  from  the  whole  Old  Testament,  sometimes  by 
strange  perversions  it  was  read  in  its  entirety  between  the 

1  “  Biblia  Illustrata,  in  quibus  Grotianae  depravationes  et  iptvdepurirelcu  justo 
examine  sistuntur  et  exploduntur.”  Calov’s  hatred  for  Grotius,  whom  he 
considers  to  be  i(nullius  religionis  ”  and  “  deterior  Judaeis,”  amounted  to 
fanaticism.  .  It  sometimes  makes  him  almost  witty,  as  when  he  accuses 
Grotius  of  implying  that  the  Cherubini  were  “  aliquod  bituminis  genus  !  ” 
His  own  commentary  is  a  perfect  hotbed  of  violent  errors,  on  which  he  insists 
as  the  only  orthodoxy.  He  often  leaves  important  passages  unexplained  but 
never  omits  an  opportunity  of  attacking  “heretics.”  Tut  Grotius  is’ still 
valued  and  Calov  is  forgotten.  Exegesis  which  is  mainly  controversial  stands 
self-condemned. 

Mullinger,  ii.  106  ;  Dollinger,  Die  Universitdten  sonst  und  jetst  (1871). 

3  “  Was  auch  als  Wahreit  oder  Fabel 
In  tausend  Biichem  dir  erscheint, 

Das  Alles  ist  ein  Thurm  zu  Babel 

Wenn  es  die  Liebe  nicht  vereint.” — Goethe,  Xenien. 

The  Bible  is  not  a  collection  of  aphorisms  designed  to  serve  as  proof 
texts  for  Dogmatics.  The  anxiety  of  dogma  to  quote  Biblical  proofs  may 
easily  betray  theologians  into  an  atomistic  mode  of  procedure  which  tears 
passages  out  of  the  context  and  makes  them  isolated  groups  for  isolated 
theses”  (J.  Muller  in  Herzog,  s.v.  Dogmatics). 


366  Mechanical  Infallibility. 

lines  of  some  single  book.  The  excesses  of  this  view  arc 
almost  inconceivable.  In  Calov,  Quenstedt,  Hollaz,  and  even 
in  Gerhard,  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  becomes  mainly 
an  inward  assurance  that  their  private  opinions  about  Holy 
Scripture  are  irrefragably  true.1  In  Wernsdorf  the  work  of  the 
Spirit  is  degraded  into  a  recalling  to  memory  of  the  texts 
which  prove  our  judgment  about  doctrines;  and  our  judg¬ 
ment  must  itself  be  based  on  the  fact  that  we  hold  true 
doctrine  !  Scripture  was  declared  to  be  not  “  an  inanimate 
instrument,”  but  a  sort  of  oracular  teraph,  a  self-efficacious 
organism,  which  had  the  inherent  power  of  emanating  true 
theology.2  This  mechanical  infallibility  was  so  far  attributed 
to  the  symbolic  books  that  Calovius  and  his  followers  speak 
of  them  also  as  possessing  a  normative  power  and  a  mediate 
inspiration.  The  bad  rule,  Conscquentiae  aequipollent  revelatis, 
was  everywhere  prevalent,  and  the  endeavour  to  establish 
unnatural  emphases  destroyed  the  bases  of  true  interpretation. 
Controversy  tried  (so  to  speak)  to  underline  every  word  from 
which  an  argument  could  be  extracted.3  Men  were  harassed 
by  dubious  texts  “  blown  backwards  and  forwards  at  the 
opening  of  opposite  windows.”  Thus  did  the  dogmatists  set 
up  their  idols  in  their  heart,  and  put  the  stumbling-block  of 
their  opinionativeness  before  their  face. 

4.  Two  controversies  which  wasted  the  energies  and  evoked 
the  mutual  anathemas  of  the  Reformed  and  Lutheran 
Churches  will  serve  to  illustrate  how  grave  is  the  misuse  of 
Scripture  when  it  is  applied  to  the  polemic  elaboration  of 
minute  and  sectarian  dogma. 

i.  One  is  the  dispute,  or  rather  the  series  of  disputes, 
which  arose  out  of  Calvinism.  The  Church  has  long  since 
shown  a  practical  determination  to  cease  prying  into  the 

1  Domer,  ii.  123-127,  who  quotes  Gerhard,  Loci,  pt.  ii.  §§  20,  30,  44  ; 
Quenstedt,  pt.  i.  p.  97,  iii.  569  ;  Hollatius,  i.  136,  &e. 

2  Dorner,  ii.  132-141. 

3  For  instance,  Rarabach  says,  “  Merito  vocibus  tanta  signification^  am¬ 
plitude,  tantumque  pondus  assignatur,  quantum  per  rei  substratae  naturarn 
sustinere  possunt  and  Pfeiffer  still  more  precisely,  “  Tanta  cuilibet  voci 
tribuenda  est  emphasis  quanta  potest  ”  (see  Zbckler,  Handb.  d.  Theol.  Wissen- 
schaften,  p.  658). 


Dogmatism.  307 

councils  of  God,  and  has  remained  content  with  the  double 
certainty  on  the  one  hand  of  God’s  love,  on  the  other  of  man’s 
freedom.  She  rightly  refuses  to  follow  the  example  of  Milton’s 
fallen  angels  who  reasoned  hio-h 

“  Of  providence,  foreknowledge,  will  and  fate, 
k  ixed  fate,  free  will,  foreknowledge  absolute, 

And  found  no  end,  in  wandering  mazes  lost/5 

In  the  seventeenth  century  it  was  otherwise.  Men  sincerely 
imagined  that  they  could  find  certain  warrant  in  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture  to  decide  not  only  that  God  had  passed  upon  millions  of 
miserable  men  a  “  horrible  decree  ”  of  eternal  and  inevitable 
reprobation,  but  also  whether  He  had  passed  that  decree 
upon  man  after  he  had  fallen  or  before.  Such  was  the  con¬ 
troversy  of  the  Sublapsarians  with  the  Supralapsarians. 
Could  there  be  a  stronger  indication  that  nothing  is  too 
sacred  for  the  dogmatic  passion  to  touch,  too  difficult  for  it 
to  attempt  to  resolve  ?  Could  there  be  a  more  instructive 
proof  of  the  folly  of  attempting  to  fly  up  into  the  secrets 
of  the  Deity  on  the  waxen  wings  of  the  understanding  ? 

ii.  Yet  dogmatism  intruded  with  bold  step  and  unabashed 
forehead  into  matters  yet  more  inscrutably  mysterious. 
Every  Christian  must  deplore  the  bitter  and  interminable 
disputes  about  the  double  nature  of  Christ— disputes  into 
which  the  New  Testament  never  enters,  because  it  was  only 
the  mission  of  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists  to  reveal  what 
was  necessary  for  man’s  deliverance,  and  within  the  reach  of 
his  finite  comprehension.  The  Church  for  300  years  remained 
content  with  the  plain  teaching  of  the  New  Testament,  that 
(  lirist  was  both  Divine  and  Human,  at  once  God  and  Man. 
When  the  Arian,  Apollinarian,  Nestorian,  and  Eutychian 
heresies  arose,  she  was  content,  after  fierce  disputings  and 
many  evil  surmises,  with  the  four  words  of  definition  which 

»he  had  accepted  at  four  great  oecumenical  Councils _ 

uXtjOw,  TeXf'ai?,  dBiaiperw,  davyxv™*— that  Christ  was 
truly  God,  perfectly  Man,  indivisibly  God-Man,  and  distinctly 
God  and  Man.  The  refining  and  speculating  genius  of 
Greek  theologians  had  ventured  further  to  define  the  relation 


368 


Theosophy. 


of  the  two  natures  in  Christ  by  the  word  7 repix<»PV<m>  wllic]l 
was  translated  into  Latin  by  circuminsessio,  and  was  treated 
of  by  the  Schoolmen  as  the  communicatio  idiomatum }  Luther 
in  his  early  days  was  not  fond  of  these  scholastic  terms.  He 
pointed  out  that  not  only  Homoousion  but  even  Trinitas  are 
post-scriptural  expressions.2  In  his  catechism  he  speaks  of 
the  Trinity  “  ©economically  ”  as  corresponding  to  creation, 
redemption  and  sanctification.  He  said  emphatically  “the 
simplicity  of  Scripture  is  to  be  observed,  nor  let  men  presume 
to  speak  more  clearly  or  more  simply  than  God  Himself  has 
spoken.”  So,  in  Melanchtlion’s  early  editions  of  the  Loci, 
there  was  no  attempt  at  Theosophy.  It  is  only  in  later 
editions  that  he  tries  to  achieve  a  speculative  construction  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  “  as  the  eternal  necessary  process 
of  the  divine  self-consciousness,  in  which  God,  Whose  thoughts 
are  realities,  eternally  sets  Himself  over  against  Himself,  but 
also  again  unites  with  Himself.”  Luther,  too,  was  led  to 
speculate,  in  a  manner  closely  bordering  upon  Gnosticism, 
about  the  Divinity  concealing  or  withholding  itself  in  Christ  s 
Passion.  But  this  is  nothing  to  the  developments  of  the 
later  Protestant  scholastics.  In  Chemnitz  and  Calov  not  even 
the  communicatio  idiomatum  is  enough.  It  becomes  some¬ 
thing  threefold — the  genus  icliomaticum,  genus  apotelesmaticum, 
and  genus  civ'xgi jjlcltucov  or  majestaticum . 3  As  though  a  soit 
of  a  something  ”  by  way  of  meaning  could  in  any  way  be 
attached  to  such  aerial  and  wholly  unscriptural  speculations  ! 
Yet  even  on  this  subject  arose  furious  quarrels  between 
Mentzer  and  the  theologians  of  Marburg  and  Giessen  on  the 
one  side,  and  Osiander  and  those  of  Tubingen  on  the  other 
the  former  maintaining  that  Christ  s  incarnation  was  a  /cevcocris 
or  emptying  of  omnipotence  and  omnipresence,  and  the  latter 
that  it  was  only  a  or  concealment.  I  bus  was  it  assumed 

that  not  only  the  whole  of  Christianity,  with  all  its  aspirations, 

1  Form.  Concordiae  (1580).  The  favourite  Post-Reformation  illustration  of 
the  Tr€piYu>pT](Tis  is  the  burning  bush  (see  Calov,  ad  loc.). 

2  Werke,  xi.  1547,  xiii.  2631.  T ptas  is  first  found  in  Theophilus  of  Antioch, 
Trinitas  in  Tertullian.  'Onoovaiov  was  originally  borrowed  from  Neo-Platonists. 

3  Calovius,  Systema,  636  ;  Form.  Cone.  sol.  2,  decl.  vin.  36  ;  Dorner,  11. 
148  ;  Baur,  Dreieiniykeit,  iii.  pt.  i.  c.  8. 


369 


Bib  l  iced  Supe  met  turn  I  i  sm. 

and  spiritual  insight  into  things  which  surpass  man’s  under¬ 
standing  and  elude  the  feeble  powers  of  man’s  expression,  but 
even  the  most  secret  things  of  God,  and  what  took  place,  to 
use  the  bad  phrase  of  some  theologians,  “  in  the  innermost 
council-chambers  of  the  Trinity,”  could  be  stated  like  a 
geometrical  proposition,  labelled  with  theological  technicalities, 
and  enforced  in  the  belief  of  others  with  abuse  and  violence  ! 

“  Vain  wisdom  all  and  false  philosophy  ! 55 

It  was  an  idle  attempt  to  know  Christ  by  subtle  definitions, 
whereas  He  is  only  to  be  known  by  sympathy,  by  spiritual 
feeling,  by  spiritual  responsiveness,  by  mystic  union.  Is  it 
possible  to  doubt  that  St.  Paul,  had  he  read  or  heard  such 
speculations,  would  have  exclaimed,  I  marvel  that  ye  are  so 
soon  corrupted  from  the  simplicity  that  is  towards  Christ 
Jesus  ? 1 

5.  The  irpMTov  ^jrevScx;  of  the  whole  unprofitable  develop¬ 
ment  was — once  again — Biblical  Supernaturalism ;  an  irre¬ 
verent  identification  of  “  inspiration  ”  with  “  verbal  dictation.” 

hoever  was  the  first  dogmatist  to  make  the  terms  “  the 
Bible  ”  and  “  the  Word  of  God  ”  synonymous,  rendered  to  the 
cause  of  truth  and  of  religion  an  immense  disservice.  The 
phrase  in  that  sense  has  no  shadow  of  Scriptural  authority. 
It  occurs  from  three  to  four  hundred  times  in  the  Old 
Testament,  and  about  a  hundred  times  in  the  New;  and  in 
not  one  of  all  those  instances  is  it  applied  to  the  Scriptures.2 
Archbishop  Agobard  of  Lyons  even  in  the  ninth  century  had 
argued  against  the  absurdity  of  reducing  the  Prophets  to  a 
level  no  higher  than  that  of  the  dumb  ass.3  The  formula 
of  the  Reformation  in  its  best  days,  like  that  of  the  Church 
of  England,  was  not  “Scriptura  cst  Verburn  Dei,”  but 
“  Scriptura  complect  it  ur  V  erbum  Dei.’’ 4  Had  inspiration  been 

1  See  2  Cor.  xi.  3  :  Gal.  i.  6. 

-  See  Bishop  Thirl  wall,  Charges ,  i.  71. 

3  “  t^uodsi  ita  sentitis  quanta  absurd  it  as  sequatur  quis  dinumerare  poterit  ? 

.  .  .  Restat  ergo  ut  siout  ministerio  angelico  vox  artieulata  formata  est  in  ore 
asinae  ita  dic&tis  formari  in  ore  prophetarum  ”  (Agobard). 

4  See  Art.  vi.,  “  Holy  Scripture  contaxneth  all  things  necessary  to  salvation.” 
And  in  the  services  for  the  ordering  of  Priests  and  Bishops,  ‘‘Are  you  per- 
sua  led  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  contain  sufficiently  all  doctrine  required  of 

B  B 


370  Infallible  Oracles. 


capable  of  definition  as  a  supernatural  verbal  dictation 
which  secured  infallibility  to  the  inspired  writers,  nothing 
would  have  been  easier  than  so  to  define  it.  The  Church 
has  never  laid  down  any  such  definition  of  it,  or  indeed  any 
theory  or  definition  of  it  whatever. 

The  meaning  of  Inspiration,  as  indicated  by  all  the  greatest 
writers  of  theology,  and  by  the  decisive  usage  of  our  own 
Church,1  does  not  imply  an  exclusive  Theopneustia  for  the 
sacred  writers,  and  still  less  for  every  word  which  they 
uttered  or  recorded.  It  meant  the  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  of  God  revealing  Himself  in  every  great  thought  and 
utterance  of  the  soul  of  man ;  given  in  the  bestowal  of  “  every 
good  and  every  perfect  gift.’' 

6.  It  is  easy  to  see  how  the  doctrine  arose.  Papal  infallibility 
had  been  set  aside.  In  the  perplexity  of  opinions  men 
yearned  to  substitute  some  objective  authority  in  the  place 
of  it,  and  so  to  acquire,  or  to  imagine  that  there  could  exist, 
i  especting  every  conceivable  detail  of  theological  speculation,  a 
certitude  which,  as  regards  such  details,  is  nothing  but 
an  idle  dream.  The  Reformed  and  Lutheran  Churches  having 
gained— often  by  heroic  struggles  and  through  seas  of  blood 
—the  undisturbed  possession,  not  only  of  certain  Christian 
verities,  but  also  each  of  its  own  special  theories ;  and,  being 
compelled  to  maintain  this  heritage  of  opinion  against 
Anabaptists,  against  Socinians,  against  Romanists,  wanted 
something  to  which  they  could  appeal  as  a  decisive  oracle.2 


necessity  for  eternal  salvation?”  And  again  in  the  Homilies,  “Unto  a 
ehiistian  man  there  can  be  nothing  more  necessary  than  the  knowledge  of 

1  WCnpture’  forasmucl1  as  in  it  is  contained  God’s  true  Word  ” 

I  he  word  Inspiration  ”  occurs  five  or  six  times  in  the  Prayer-book  and 

infaTliltifity  ^  °rdmary  glfts  of  the  HoL  Spirit  which  are  wholly  apart  from 

2  They  rejected  the  three  principles  insisted  on  (later)  by  the  Council  of 

1  nihlh-ff  ^  of  Ecclesiastical  tradition  ;  (2)  the  canon  and 

d  '  ,  “  °1  A  u lgate  ;  (3)  the  necessity  of  conforming  interpretation  to 
cnurch  authority  and  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  Fathers.  They  said 
that  tradition  was  invalid  ;  that  the  Vulgate  is  full  of  errors  and  its  canon 
untenable  ;  and  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  consent  of  the  Fathers  nor 
would  it  be  decisive  if  there  were  (see  Pobertson  Smith,  The  Old  Test,  in  the 
.  Churfh)-  On  the  other  hand,  they  extravagantly  and  unscripturally 
exaggerate  the  affectiones  Scripturae,  on  which  see  Quenstedt,  Theol.  i  59 

aUdoHtas:  WttfKtoj  (3)  perspicuity;  (4)  semet 


Asswnptio?is. 


They  made  the  Holy  Scriptures  such  an  oracle,  but  they 
made  the  oracle  answer  them  according  to  their  own  idols. 
They  substituted  for  its  interpretation  their  own  ready-made 
theology.  They  assumed  that  the  Bible  formed  a  homogeneous, 
self-interpreting,  and  verbally  dictated  whole,  and  that  the 
inferences  drawn  from  it  by  dialectics  and  compacted  into 
a  technical  system  were  as  certain  and  as  sacred  as  itself.1 
In  this  way  a  difference  of  exegetical  opinion  became,  not 
only  an  intellectual  error,  but  a  civil  crime.  Step  by  step 
we  mark  the  full  imposition  of  this  dogma.  It  was  not 
itself  discussed.  There  was  no  attempt  to  place  it  on  a 
scientific  basis.  It  was  an  a  priori  assumption  which  was 
pushed  into  the  utmost  extreme  of  unreasonable  fanaticism,2 
and  which  directly  contradicted  the  principle  of  the  Apostle 
that  “  he  that  is  spiritual  judgeth  all  things  and  he  himself  is 
judged  of  no  man.”  3 * * * * 8  It  was  based,  not  on  exact  principles, 
but  on  vague  assertions  which  floated  in  the  air.  The  great 
Reformers,  as  we  have  seen,  never  attempted  to  bind  them¬ 
selves  by  the  only  possible  consequences  of  such  a  doctrine. 
They  used  current  phrases,  but  practically  they  left  them¬ 
selves  a  wide  liberty  to  criticise  not  only  the  separate  utter- 

1  Ram  bach’s  Institution's  Hermen.  Sacrae,  1723,  is  a  learned  book,  and 
characteristic  of  the  epoch  in  its  attacks  on  Grotius  and  Arminian  exegesis  ; 
its  irrelevances  and  digressions  ;  its  scholastic  formalism  ;  and  the  superstition 
with  which  it  claims  an  inward  enlightenment  apart  from  other  gifts  in  mere 
matters  of  interpretation  (see  Klausen,  pp.  272-276).  All  these  theologians 
s<*t  \rp  their  personal  impressions  as  the  common  measure  of  truth,  and  so 
made  them  an  instrument  of  aggression  on  the  rights  of  conscience.  See 
Bishop  Thirlwall’s  Charges,  i.  274. 

2  Gerhard  makes  no  difference  between  Revelation  and  the  record  of  it,  and 

Hollaz,  arguing  throughout  on  the  rule  that  “  Whatever  Scripture  teaches  is 

infallibly  certain,”  transfers  the  same  infallible  certainty  to  all  his  own  con¬ 

clusions.  The  dogma  was  more  and  more  strongly  asserted  but  never  proved. 

Quenstedt  borrows  the  bad  phrase,  “  Scripturae  auctoritas  est  tanta,  quanta 
Dei,"  and  says,  “  Invicte  eoncludimus  oinnem  et  totam  Scripturam  Sacram 
nut  Id  ejus  ret  minimd  parte  cxceptd,  esse  QeoiTvevariv  ’  ( System  Theol. 

i.  69).  So  too  Hollaz,  Lange,  Calov,  Carpzov,  Baier,  Buxtorf,  &c.  And 
yet  they  practically  abrogated  not  a  few  “  God  saids,”  beginning  with  the 
decree  of  the  First  Council  at  Jerusalem  (Acts  xv.  9),  to  say  nothing  of 
the  whole  Levitic  Law.  It  is  Christian  practice  merely  which  has  drawn  a 
distinction  between  the  Universal  and  the  Partial,  the  Temporary  and  the 
Permanent. 

8  1  Cor.  ii.  15.  Corn,  a  Lapide  draws  from  this  verse  the  conclusion  that 
“the  spiritual  man”  will  have  recourse  to  the  better  judgment  of  “the 
Church.” 


o  i  Z 


BatJimann. 


ances  of  individual  writers,  but  even  the  very  composition  of 
the  canon.  They  preferred  to  be  inconsequent  rather  than 
to  be  fettered,  and  gave  to  Faith  an  authority  co-ordinate  with 
tha/t  of  Scripture.  But  their  successors  regarded  Faith  as 
the  exclusive  product  of  Scripture,  and  dependent  for  its 
authority  on  Scripture  only.1  They  turned  the  inspiration- 
dogma  into  “  an  iron  formula,  a  painful  juridical  fetter  of  con¬ 
science  to  be  imposed  on  Christians  to  the  detriment  of  fresh 
religious  life  and  the  destruction  of  a  just  appreciation  of 
the  Bible.  -  And  thus  they  directly  impaired  the  authority 
ot  Scripture.  For  “  as  incredible  praises  given  to  men,” 
says  Hooker,3  “  do  often  abate  and  impair  the  credit  of  the 
deserved  commendation,  so  we  must  likewise  take  great 
heed  lest  by  attributing  to  Scripture  more  than  it  can  have, 
the  incredibility  of  that  do  cause  even  those  things  which  it 
hath  abundantly  to  be  less  reverently  esteemed  I  ”  “  It  is,” 

says  Richard  Baxter,  “  the  Devil’s  last  method  to  undo  by 
over-doing,  and  so  to  destroy  the  authority  of  the  Apostles  by 
over-magnifying.” 


Rathmann  of  Liibeck  (1612—1628)  tried  to  make  a 
stand  against  these  errors.  He  argued  that  to  restrict  all 
real  communication  with  God  to  a  study  of  the  Scriptures, 
to  confine  to  them  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  to 
endow  them  with  the  living  powers  of  the  Deity  was  to  dis¬ 
honour  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  to  put  fellowship 
whh  an  impersonal  thing  in  the  place  of  fellowship  wifh  a 
living  Saviour.  He  called  the  Scriptures  “  a  passive  instrument, 
the  light  of  an  object,  instrumental,  historical."  But  his  truer 
views  were  indignantly  rejected.  The  theological  faculties 
<  6  six  universities,4  ascribing  to  Scripture  an  inherent  efficacy 
tor  salvation,  condemned  him  as  a  Calvinist,  as  a  despiser  of 

Hi!r'Jh<vr^mme.ntait0rS  °f  the  Eeformed  Churches  (Calvin,  Beza,  Zwuwli 

commentators'  Xhk  "7"  771  indePe'ldellt'y  exegetical  than  the  Lutheran 
ll..  ”  tati°rrs  (Museulus,  Chytraeus,  Brentius,  Bugenhagen,  Buliinger  &c  ) 

thiimUchkeit  d'pePv  (iTU//tiC7V-b};  dl|ressions  (8ee  Gbbel>  J)ie  Eel.  Eigen- 
iL  330)  ’  f'  UndLuth‘  Klrche>  Bonn> 183?  ;  Tholuck,  Verm.  Schriften , 

2  Hagenbach,  Hist,  of  Ref.  i.  161 

3  Ecd.  Pol  bk.  ii.  c.  8,  §  1. 

4  Wlttenberg,  Konigsberg,  Helmstadt,  Dantzig,  Jena,  Leipzig. 


Bibliolatry.  373 

the  external  word,  as  a  sympathiser  with  Scliwenckfeld  and 
with  mystic  fanaticism.  In  their  system  the  sole  work  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  to  give  us  assurance  that  the  doctrines  of 
Scripture  are  true.  Chemnitz  seems  to  deny  the  possibility 
of  faith  in  Christ  unless  it  be  preceded  by  faith  in  the  whole 
of  Scripture  as  undoubted  truth.  We  soon  arrive  at  such 
superstitious  phrases  as  that  the  writers  of  Scripture  are 
“  amanuenses  of  God ,  hands  of  Christ ,  Scribes  and  notaries  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  ;  ” 1  not  even  instrumental  authors,  but  only 
“  living  and  writing  pens.”  2  Holy  Scripture  is  described,  not 
as  the  record  of  revelation  but  as  revelation  itself.  Christianity, 
which  existed  so  many  years  before  a  single  Gospel  or 
Epistle  had  been  written,  was  robbed  of  its  power.  I11 
defiance  of  every  historic  fact  the  inspiration  of  the  AjDostles 
was  regarded  as  the  annihilation  of  their  proper  individuality. 
This  sort  of  dogmatism  became  more  and  more  pernicious. 
God’s  presence  and  providence  in  the  history  of  the  world 
were  practically  ignored.  The  Bible  was  spoken  of  as  “  a 
divine  effluence,”  “a  part  of  God.”  Nitzsehe  even  seriously 
discussed  whether  Holy  Scripture  could  be  called  a  creature, 
and  decided  that  it  could  not.  The  Old  and  New  Testa¬ 
ments  were  treated  as  one  book,  of  which  all  the  words  and 
every  word  were  immediately  dictated.3  The  view  fell  far 
below  that  of  the  wiser  Rabbis,  who  at  least  distinguished 
between  different  grades  of  inspiration.  It  was  a  revival 
of  the  worst  form  of  that  Talmudic  cf)\vapia  Kal  paraioryf;,4 
which  said  that  Jehovah  had  dictated  everv  letter  of  the  Torah 
from  “  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God,”  down  to  “  Timnath  was  the 
concubine  of  Eliphaz.”  Men  like  Maimonides,  Abarbanel, 
Qimchi,  had  long  seen  that  such  inventions  can  only  be 
maintained  by  degrading  casuistry. 

v  O  O 

1  So  Gerhard.  Quenstedt  says,  “Scriptura  est  infallibilis  veritatis  foils, 
omnisque  erroris  expers,  oomia  et  singula  sunt  verissima  .  .  .  sive  dogmatica, 
give  moralia,  sive  hist orica,  kc.” 

8  “  Calami  Spirit  us  sacri  didantis .”  Gregory  the  Great  seems  to  have  been 
the  first  to  give  currency  to  this  bad  phrase.  £>o  Calovius,  Systema,  i.  cap.  4, 
ii.  cap.  1,  and  passim.  Compare  Hollaz,  Exam.  Theol.  p.  73  ;  Calov.  System. 
i.  5i*4  ;  Que«stedt,  Theol.  Didad.  i.  55.  i)ifl'ercnces  of  style,  kc.,  were 
“accommodations”  of  the  Spirit  (id.  i.  76). 

‘  8  Hollaz. 


4  Gregory  of  Nyssa. 


374 


Extravagant  Views. 


And  thus  the  old  ecclesiastical  authority,  which  Luther 
had  so  decidedly  rejected,  was  brought  back.  Even  the 
im.pius  orthodoxies  was  supposed  to  be  illuminated  ex  opere 
operato  by  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures.1  Questions  about 
genuineness  and  integrity  were  held  to  be  irrelevant  because, 
according  to  Calov,  the  Church  had  decided,  or,  according  to 
Quenstedt,  because  each  book  sufficiently  proves  its  own 
canonicity.2  “  To  correct  even  acknowledged  errors  in  Luther’s 
translation  was  regarded  as  ‘  dangerous ;  ’  nay,  the  very  typo¬ 
graphical  errors  of  his  editions  were  to  be  left  intact — a  sure 
sign  of  what  kind  of  faith  was  being  set  up.”  3  Although 
Jerome  had  so  freely  pointed  out  the  cilicisms  of  St.  Paul, 
Quenstedt,  Hollaz,  Calov,  and  the  Wittenberg  faculty  in  1638 
decreed  that  to  speak  of  barbarisms  and  soloecisms  in  the 
Greek  of  the  New  Testament  would  be  a  blasphemy  against 
the  writers  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  against  the  Holy  Ghost.4 
Orthodox  purists  thought  that  the  very  doctrine  of  inspiration 
was  imperilled  unless  the  inspiration  was  conveyed  in  perfect 
Greek.  Hebraisms  were  only  the  desire  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
assimilate  the  style  of  the  Old  Testament  to  that  of  the 
New.  Hellenistic  Greek,  according  to  Pfeiffer,  is  simply  Holy 
Greek — a  form  of  speech  peculiar  to  God.5  The  Formula 
Consensus  Helvetica  (drawn  up  in  1675  by  F.  Heidegger  and 

1  Dorner  (ii.  134),  to  whom  I  am  here  chiefly  indebted,  refers  to  Tholuck, 
Das  Kirchl.  Lcbcn ,  i.  65. 

Protests  against  this  confusion  came  specially  from  the  mystics.  “The 
external  word  is  the  human  voice,  in  which  there  is  included  no  divine 
virtue”  (Schwenkenfeld,  Ep.  79).  “If  thou  sayest  among  the  inexperienced 
that  the  letter  is  God’s  word,  thou  art  ...  a  deceiver”  (Weigel,  Postills,  i. ). 
But  as  far  back  as  the  eighth  century  the  eminently  orthodox  Father,  St. 
John  of  Damascus,  had  said,  “  We  apply  not  to  the  written  word  of  Scripture 
the  title  due  to^the  incarnate  Word  of  God.”  He  says  that  when  the  Scriptures 
are  called  \oyia  Qeov,  the  phrase  is  only  figurative.  Disput.  Christiani  et 
Saraceni  (see  Lupton,  St.  John  of  Damase.  p.  95). 

1  bus  Luther — under  his  current  title  of  Megalander — was  erected  into 
a  sort  oi  Pope,  while  the  Lutherans  were  diverging  most  widely  from  the 
spirit  of  his  writings. 

4  Quenstedt  censures  Beza  for  not  having  held  this  view  ( System .  i.  84). 

3  Pfeiffer,  Herineneutica  Sacra,  c.  8  ;  Dubia  Vcxata ,  pp.  457,  sq.  The 
same  views_  were  maintained  by  Walther  (Harmon.  Biblica),  Buxtorf  (Anti- 
critica),  \\  asmutli  ( Vindiciae),  Calov,  kc.  (see  Meyer,  Gesch.  d.  Schrifterkl. 

lii.  295),  and  by  Samuel  Clark  in  his  Divine  Authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures , 

1699  ;  and  John  Owen.  They  were  rejected  by  Ussher,  Yoss,  Hody,  Casaubon 
Grotius,  Bellarmine,  Clericus,  kc. 


Scholasticism. 


375 


Turretin 1)  laid  it  down  as  tlie  doctrine  of  the  Church  that  the 
very  vowel  points  and  accents  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  were  divinely 
inspired.2  The  Holy  Spirit,  it  was  seriously  maintained,  had 
altogether  abdicated  His  agency  to  the  written  word.3  Such 
were  the  prevalent  views  of  the  current  opinion  which  called 
itself  “orthodox”  in  France,  in  Holland,  and  in  Germany, 
both  among1  the  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  Churches.  We 
can  now  scarcely  repeat  such  statements  without  an  apology  for 
irreverence.  And  yet  for  the  correctness  of  these  serious  mis¬ 
applications  appeal  was  made  to  the  inner  testimony  of  the 
Holy  Spirit — an  appeal  which  often  sounds  “  like  a  horrible 
irony.” 4  Even  among  the  Romanists — as  was  proved  by  the 
able  and  learned  works  of  Richard  Simon,  of  Calmet 
even  of  Bellarmine — freer  views  had  begun  to  prevail — views 
less  burdensome  to  the  consciences  of  men,  less  dishonouring 
to  the  majesty  of  God.5  Thus  did  the  Post-Reformation 
Theologians  repeat  the  old  error  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees. 
They  were  not  faithful  enough  to  believe  that  the  Divine 
Revelation  could  stand  without  the  dense  hedge  of  human 
dogmas  which  they  erected  in  its  defence.  They  idolised  the 
record  to  such  an  extent  as  wholly  to  miss  its  essential 
meaning.  They  strangled  all  spiritual  life,  or  at  any  rate 
impeded  all  spiritual  growth,  by  the  tight- wound  swaddling- 
bands  of  polemic  orthodoxy.  They  turned  Christianity  into 
a  theology  and  forgot  that  it  was  a  life.  They  wrote  folios 
full  of  theological  hatred  about  problems  as  to  which  Christ 

1  Kurz,  ii.  264. 

2  Kleek,  Einleit.  126.  Calovius,  who  has  the  melancholy  honour  of  having 
made  most  dogmatic  statements  of  this  epoch  in  their  most  absurd  and 
objectionable  form,  said  “  It  is  impious  and  profane,  audacity  to  change  a 
single  point  in  the  Word  of  God,  and  to  substitute  a  smooth  breathing  for  a 
rough  or  a  rough  for  a  smooth.” 

3  As,  for  instance,  in  Seb.  Schmidt’s  Collegium  Biblicum  Prius  (V.  T.)  et 
Posterius  (N.  T.),  1670. 

4  Reuss,  Gesch.  d.  Heil.  Schriftcn,  ii.  295. 

6  We  may  be  thankful  for  the  gulf  of  difference  between  the  truthful 
moderation  of  our  Vlth  Article,  “  Holy  Scripture  containeth  all  things  neces¬ 
sary  to  salvation,”  and  the  wild  extravagance  of  the  Form.  Consensus  Hel¬ 
vetica,  “  Hebraeus  codex  turn  quoad  consonas,  turn  quoad  vocalia,  sive 
puncta  ipsa,  sive  punctorum  saltern  potestatem,  (dfoTcvtvarSs. ”  The  older 
reformed  confessions  ( e.g .  Con/.  Gall.  art.  5,  “ compleciens  quicquid  .  .  . 
requiratur  ;  Conf.  Betg.  art.  7,  “  Credimus  .  .  .  Scripturam  .  .  .  omnem 
Dei  voluntatem  complect  i),  contrast  favourably  in  this  respect  with  the  later. 


376  Fettered  Exegesis. 

was  silent ;  they  persecuted  as  heretics  those  whom  He  would 
most  have  loved. 

Of  course  under  such  a  system  true  exegesis  became  impos¬ 
sible.1  The  tone  of  it  became  petty,  jealous,  unspiritual,  and 
it  was  perpetually  hunting  after  “  emphases which  were  purely 
imaginary.  Some  fragments  of  former  truth  were  indeed 
preserved  in  Hermeneutic  treatises ;  but  they  were  repeated 
without  being  utilised.2  In  historic,  archaeological,  and  lin¬ 
guistic  researches,  amid  much  that  was  absurd  and  irrelevant, 
there  was  some  accumulation  of  materials  for  the  understand¬ 
ing  of  Scripture.  But  a  fettered  and  suspicious  exegesis  is 
always  sterile,  and  the  living  power  of  Scripture,  together 
with  all  progress  in  its  comprehension,  ceases  when  it  is 
turned  into  an  idol.  The  only  works,  and  the  only  com¬ 
mentaries  of  this  epoch  which  still  retain  any  vitality  are, 
with  all  their  faults,  the  works  of  men  like  the  Arminians, 
Grotius,  Le  Clerc,  and  Spencer ;  the  Cocceians,  Lampe, 
Yitringa,  and  Yan  Til;  the  Pietist  Bengel,  and  the  freer 
critics  like  J.  J.  Wetstein  and  G.  A.  Turretin,  by  whom 
orthodox  theology  felt  itself  injured,  and  against  some  of 
whom  it  directed  its  most  indignant  anathemas. 

English  Christians  were  happily  insulated  from  the  incessant 
bickerings  of  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Churches.  The 
active  intercourse  with  the  Continent  in  the  days  of 
Luther  and  Calvin — the  days  when  Beza,  Bucer,  and  Peter 
Martyr  had  exercised  so  large  an  influence  in  England — - 
were  followed  by  a  period  of  isolation,  in  which  the  English 
Church  was  almost  exclusively  occupied  with  her  own 
concerns.  Jewel  had  died  in  1571,  and  Hooker  in  1600;  but 
she  produced  during  the  seventeenth  century  and  the  first  half 

1  “Die  eingesch iichterte  Wissenschaft  .  .  .  tractirte  geringfiigige  Dinge 

mit  dem  lach.erlich.en  Apparat  einer  pedantischen  Gelehrsamkeit  ”  (Reuss, 
Gesch.  d.  Heil.  Schrift.  ii.  296).”  “  If  the  enquiry  is  to  be  free,  it  is  impos¬ 

sible  consistently  to  prescribe  its  results.”  Thirlwall,  Charges ,  i.  61. 

2  Such  treatises  were  very  numerous.  Among  them  were  Gerhard,  De  Interpr. 
S.  Script.  1610 ;  Glassius,  Philolog.  Sacr.  1623  ;  Rivetus,  Isagoge,  1627  ; 
Pfeiffer,  Herm.  Sacr.  1684  ;  Dannhauer,  Idea  Boni  Interprets,  1642  ;  IP 
Meyer,  Philosophia  Scripturae  Interprcs.  1666  (by  a  friend  of  Spinoza)  ; 
Francke,  Praelectiones  Hermeneuticac,  1717  ;  Rambach,  lust.  Herman.  1720.  * 


English  Theology. 


377 


of  the  eighteenth  many  eminent  theologians  and  scholars, 
such  as  Bull  (+  1710),  Pearson  (f  1686),  Ussher  (f  1656), 
Selden  (f  1654),  Beveridge  (f  1708),  Cave  (t  1713),  and 
Bingham  (f  1733).  Among  those  who  rendered  the  highest 
services  to  criticism  and  history  may  be  mentioned  Bryan 
Walton,  whose  Polyglott  appeared  in  1657 ;  the  Arabic 
scholar  Pococke  (f  1691),  Castell,  Hyde,  Spencer,  Shuckford, 
Prideaux,  and  especially  Lightfoot  (t  1675)  whose  Talmudic 
annotations  still  retain  their  value.  Bishop  Lowth  in  his 
Be  Sacra  Poesi  Hebraeorum  (1753)  and  his  Isaiah  (1779) 
rendered  to  the  English  Church  some  of  the  services  for 
which  Europe  was  afterwards  indebted  to  the  works  of 
Herder.  The  Novum  Testamentum  of  Mill  laid  the  founda¬ 
tions  of  New  Testament  criticism.  Whittaker,  Hammond 
and  Whitby  wrote  commentaries  which  contain  much  that  is 
of  permanent  interest.  Men  like  Fowler,  Leighton,  Tillotson, 
and  Burnet,  adorned  the  pulpit.  Among  the  nonconformist 
communities  Baxter,  Bunyan,  Owen,  Howe,  and  Isaac  Watts 
helped  to  keep  alive  the  flame  of  spiritual  life,  while  Hales 
and  Chillingworth,  Locke  and  Cudworth,  Smith  and  Which- 
cote  the  Cambridge  Platonists  and  other  “  moderate  divines 
abusively  called  Latitudinarians,”  showed  how  large  a  share 
must  always  be  contributed  to  the  development  of  truth  by 
wide  sympathies  and  unfettered  thought.  The  work  of 
Tindal  called  forth  Butlers  Analogy ;  that  of  Morgan  was 
answered  in  Warburton’s  Divine  Legation.  Wesley  and  Whit¬ 
field  did  for  England  what  Pietism  effected  for  Germany. 
By  such  men — each  in  his  own  way  and  measure,  each 
according  to  the  proportion  of  his  faith — it  may  be  fairly 
said  that  all  which  was  anti-Christian  and  perilous  in  the 
writings  of  the  English  deists  was  defeated  all  along  the  line. 

II.  And  step  by  step,  in  every  Protestant  country  of  the 
Continent,  the  unbending  system  of  creed-bondage,  with  its 
idolatrous  letter-worship,  was  gradually  broken  down. 
Freer  movements  of  all  kinds  began.  These,  even  when 
they  were  purely  spiritual,  were  opposed  by  the  dominant 
orthodoxy  with  every  weapon  in  their  power  ; — but  they  were 


378 


The  Deliverance. 


opposed  in  vain.  The  true  exposition  of  the  Bible  which 
had  freed  men  from  the  tyrannies  of  a  decadent  Bomanism 
was  powerful  enough  to  free  them  once  more  from  the 
renewed  tyrannies  of  orthodox  scholasticism. 

And  the  deliverance  came,  as  it  always  comes,  not  from 
majorities,  but  from  the  few ;  not  from  multitudes,  but  from 
individuals  ;  not  from  the  favourites  of  erring  Churches,  but 
from  rebels  against  their  formalism  and  their  tyranny;  not 
from  the  smooth  adherents  of  conventional  religionism,  but 
from  its  inspired  martyrs  and  heroic  revolutionists.  In  other 
words  the  deliverance  comes  always  from  the  prophets  and 
the  children  of  the  prophets :  spiritually,  from  an  Antony,  a 
Benedict,  a  Francis ;  socially  and  morally  from  a  Howard,  a 
Clarkson,  a  Wilberforce ;  doctrinally,  from  an  Athanasius,  a 
Wiclif,  a  Hus,  a  Luther,  a  Wesley.  And  so  it  came  to  the 
“  ghastly  smooth  life,  dead  at  heart  ”  of  this  age  of  disputatious 
dogma  and  loveless  religionism.  And  so  it  always  will  come. 
It  will  come,  not  always  from  men  whom  Churches  bless,  but 
from  those  whom  they  anathematise :  not  only  from  those 
whom  churchmen  praise,  but  from  those  whom  they  call 
Beelzebub ;  not  always  from  those  whom  Bishops  have  or¬ 
dained,  but  from  men  who  have  heard  voices  which  others 
cannot  hear,  and  have  feit  upon  their  heads  the  hands  of 
an  unrecognised  and  invisible  consecration.  In  such  condi¬ 
tions  it  has  been  said  men  become  electric.  They  flash 
in  upon  the  hearts  and  consciences  of  others  something  of 
their  own  enthusiasm.  Even  in  the  deadest  ages  there  are 
always  more  persons  than  we  suppose  who  revolt  against  the 
prevailing  fashions,  who  take  courage  from  one  another,  and 
support  one  another,  until  communities  are  led  into  higher 
moral  principles  and  purer  intellectual  beliefs.  As  their  num¬ 
bers  multiply  they  catch  fire  with  a  common  idea  and  a  common 
indignation,  and  ultimately  burst  out  into  open  war  with  the 
falsities  that  surround  them.  So  it  was  in  the  days  of  Elijah 
and  in  the  days  of  Jeremiah.  So  it  was  also  in  the  days  of  the 
Son  of  Man;  So  it  was  in  the  last  century.  Seven  influences 
helped  one  by  one  to  redeem  the  age  from  its  false  develop- 


The  Arminians. 


379 


ment ;  and  those  seven  movements  were  mainly  due  to  seven 
men — Arminius,  Spener,  Calixtus,  Descartes,  Bohme,  Cappell, 
and  Cocceius.  All  the  movements  were  not  equally  pure  and 
spiritual,  but  all  were  wholesome  in  their  effects,  and  through 
them,  to  quote  the  words  of  St.  Augustine,  “  Christ  appeared 
to  the  men  of  a  decrepit  age,  that  they  might  receive  a  new 
and  youthful  life.” 

1.  About  the  year  1600  Holland  succeeded  Geneva  in  the 
Hegemony  of  Calvinism.  But  although  the  views  of  Zwingli 
had  been  silenced  they  were  not  wholly  repressed.  The 
hedge  of  flourishing  Dutch  universities,1  reared  by  the  new 
Pharisaism,  could  not  exclude  the  milder  theology  of 
Arminius  (f  1609).  Refusing  to  explain  the  Bible  by  creeds, 
he  found  rigid  Calvinism  to  be  Scripturally  untenable.  Even 
the  fulminations  of  the  Synod  of  Dort  (1618-1619)  were 
ineffectual  against  so  splendid  a  succession  of  Arminian  theo¬ 
logians  as  Episcopius  (f  1643), 2  Grotius  (t  1645),  Limborch 
(f  1711), 3  Clericus  (f  1736), 4  (f  1645)  Wetstein  (t  1754), 
Many  of  these  theologians  were  not  afraid  to  agree  with 
Romanists  and  Socinians  who  alike  rejected  the  idol  of 
verbal  infallibility.  Although  the  works  of  Grotius  were 

1  Dutch  universities  and  their  theologians  : — 

Franecker  :  Lydius,  Drusius,  Maceovius,  Amesius,  Amama,  Cocceius, 
Vitringa,  Witsius,  Giirtler. 

Utrecht  :  Voetius,  Hoornbeck,  Leydecker,  Lampe. 

Groningen  :  Gomarus,  Maresius,  J.  H.  and  Jac.  Alting. 

Leyden  :  Junius,  de  Dieu,  Rivet,  the  Spanheims,  G.  J.  Yoss,  Erpenius,  Bur¬ 
in  ann,  Witlich. 

For  details  see  Dorner,  ii.  9-12. 

2  In  1610  Episcopius  drew  up  the  Remonstrance  in  five  articles  against  the 
Gomarists,  who  charged  the  Arminian  school  with  Pelagianism.  Hence  the 
name  “Remonstrants.” 

3  Limborch  was  author  of  the  Theologia  Christiana.  He  opposed  an  extra¬ 
vagant  allegorising  and  typology,  and  is  consequently  censured  by  Rambach, 
Hermcneutica  Sacra,  155,  sq. 

4  Le  Clerc  (Ars  Critica,  3  vols.  1696  ;  Dissertatio  de  Opt .  Gen.  Interpretum, 
1693)  carried  too  far  his  theory  of  accommodation,  and  is  severely  dealt  with 
by  Rambach.  He  represents  the  strong  reaction  against  the  extravagances  of 
the  Cocceian  school,  as  also  do  Turretin,  Werenfels,  &c.  Turretin  (t  1737) 
was  a  Professor  at  Geneva.  He  protests  against  the  assumption  that  “an 
inner  light,”  which  was  able  to  discover  indefinite  meanings  in  Scripture,  was 
of  value,  and  in  his  Tractatus  de  S.  Scr.  interpretandae  methodo  he  lays  down 
the  rule  that  the  interpreter  requires  “  animus  vacuus  .  .  instar  tabulae 
rasae  ut  genuinum  sensum  percipiat.”  He  was  a  friend  of  Burnet,  Tillotson, 
and  Wake,  and  endeavoured  to  unite  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Churches. 


380 


Spener. 


received  with  a  storm  of  disapprobation,  his  classical 
learning,  his  masterly  good  sense,  his  brevity,  independence, 
and  incomparable  lucidity  make  his  annotations  more  valu¬ 
able  than  those  of  any  one  of  his  immediate  contemporaries.1 
In  the  writings  of  Le  Clerc  and  Spencer  there  was  a  mis¬ 
placed  ingenuity  and  an  extravagant  utilitarianism,  but  even 
these  faults  have  not  robbed  their  learning  of  all  its 
value,  and  their  works  exercised  a  permanent  influence 
equally  removed  from  disputatious  dogma  and  intolerant 
self-satisfaction. 2 


2.  Another  breath  of  fresh  life  came  from  the  Pietists.  To 
the  icy  stiffness  of  orthodoxy  not  only  the  dreams  of  Bohme, 
but  even  the  glowing  holiness  of  Arndt  had  been  offensive. 
But  the  influence  of  Arndt  was  revived  by  Philip  James 
Spener,  a  man  at  once  learned,  profound,  and  tolerant. 
He  was  chosen  minister  at  Frankfort  in  1666,  at  the  age  of 
thirty-one.  He  became  court  preacher  at  Dresden  in  1686, 
and  provost  at  Berlin  in  1691.  He  had  read  the  works  of 
Baxtei,  and  translated  into  German  two  books  of  Molinos. 
A  faithful  Lutheran,  he  yet  could  not  help  seeing  that  living 
holiness  was  being  buried  under  dead  formalism  and  a  sterile 
theology  of  words.3  "The  Lord  mercifully  keep  us,"  he 


cIun'tT^  ?  P  BlTle  ;  fmo\Hist.  CriL  du  V.  T.  p.  443  ;  Des  Comment. 

AT  BSd7de!P’  ?iag'  1517  :  Herder>  Briefed.  Stud.  Theol.  p.  357  ; 

Meyer,  Gesch  der  SchrifterMdrung,  iii.  435.  Grotius  was  largely  followed 

by;H^0nd.!n  hlS  FaraPhrase  and  Annotations,  1675;  Psalms  and  Pro- 
verbs,  IQM.  _  There  was  a  current  saying  “  Grotium  nusquam  in  sacris  litteris 
m venire  Christum,  Gocceium  ubique.”  It  is  not  true.  OnPs.  xv.  10  Grotius 
says,  Latet  sensus  mysticus  .  .  ut  in plerisque  P salmis.”  Some  of  his  freer 
views  may  beyeen  m  the  notes  on  Gen.  i.  26  ;  iii.  15  ;  Ps.  ii.  ;  xvi.  ;  Is.  vii 

14u’  ^X‘  6f>  X1-'  }  i  Mlc*  v;  1  >  Matt-  L  22  i  iii-  15  ;  vi.  13,  &c.  Grotius  was 
-  ministeiNaorf1SA  ^  wQould  .not  cal]  the  whole  Roman  priesthood 

GalovT t  ^tlSnSti  ’i  a  S0Clnlan’  thouSh  he  refuted  Socinus  ;  and  (by 

i  0  V  an  ^jtheist,  though  he  was  the  author  of  the  Be  Veritate.  In  the 

g1ood  sense  of  his  notes  he  has  in  multitudes  of  instances  antici- 

V  fUST!  F.odeiP  exeSesis'  His  view  of  inspiration  was  “A 

mPemoriaSvaWp  »dlC^a?  ln'stonas  _no7n  fuit  opus.  Satis  fuit  Scriptorem 
memona  \alere.  P  ot.  pro  pac.  PJccles.  1 

Bahr  says  (Symbolic,  i.  41)  that  in  their  system  “God  appears  as  a 
Jesuit  using  bad  means  for  a  good  end.”  ^  a 

1  he  Lutheran  Churches  had  produced  nothing  of  first-rate  importance  in 
exegesis^  since  the  death  of  Flacius  in  1575.  The  most  important  Lutheran 

PfpW°?pnS  °f  he  nith  Century  were  Gei'hard,  S.  Glass,  Dannhauer,  A. 
m,  H  -  Camei anus,  Chemnitz,  Chytraus,  Hunnius,  Tarnov,  and  G.  Calixt. 
lie  cine,  exegetes  of  the  Reformed  Churches  were  Arminius,  Episcopius, 


Pietism. 


381 


prayed,  “  from  interpreting  Scripture  solely  from  our  creeds, 
and  so  erecting  the  genuine  popedom  in  the  midst  of  our 
Church/’  He  desired  to  add  an  inward  life  to  the  outward 
profession,  and  in  his  Pia  Dcsicleria  (1675),  and  Spiritual 
Priesthood  (1677)  he  pointed  out  with  touching  humility  the 
necessity  for  reform.  He  recalled  the  forgotten  doctrine  of  the 
priesthood  of  every  Christian  believer,  and  by  his  Collegia pietatis 
or,  as  we  should  call  them,  Bible  classes  and  prayer  meetings^ 
he  revived  a  sincere  religion  in  many  hearts.  He  was  no  separ¬ 
atist  ;  hut  Pietism  was  passionate  for  the  holiness  about  which 
orthodoxy  was  indifferent,  and  indifferent  about  the  formulae 
for  which  orthodoxy  was  passionate.  Spener  early  despaired  of 
doing  more  than  to  found  ecclesiolam  in  ecclesid,  and  to  lead  back 
Christian  doctrine  from  the  head  to  the  heart.  Part  of  the 
great  and  good  work  ‘which  he  effected  was  the  revival  of  that 
gift  of  preaching  which  is  known  in  the  New  Testament  by 
the  name  of  “  prophecy.”  Even  preaching  had  withered  into 
inanition  amid  the  combats  of  theology.  It  had  become 
almost  exclusively  dogmatic,  controversial,  and  scholastic  in 
its  spirit,  and  it  therefore  failed  to  elevate  the  life  or  to 
touch  the  heart.  It  followed  various  methods  known 
by  the  barbarous  and  pedantic  titles  of  Pancratian, 
Porismatic,  Hoppnerian,  Zetetic,  and  Ursinian,1  and  was 
in  fact  everything  except  edifying  and  spiritual.  But 
Spener’ s  example  helped  to  sweep  away  this  mass  of  artificial 
rules,  and  by  reintroducing  the  genuine  Homily  he  gave  a 
fresh  impulse  to  the  careful  study  of  Scriptural  thoughts.  The 
views  of  Spener  were  adopted  by  three  young  Masters  of  Arts, 
A.  H.  Francke,  Anton,  and  Schade,  who  held  Bible  meet¬ 
ings  at  Leipzig.'2  They  tried  to  do  at  Leipzig  exactly  what 
the  Wesleys  tried  to  do  at  Oxford.  Even  so  pure  and  spiritual  a 
movement  as  this 3  was  violently  denounced  by  all  who  mistook 

Chamier,  Sixt.  Amama.  Grotius,  A.  Rivet,  Drnsius,  L.  de  Dieu,  Gomarus, 
Cappellus,  Cocceius,  Lipsius,  Bochart.  Among  the  Socinians,  F.  Socinus  (+ 
15t52)  Crell,  Schlichting.  1  See  Herzog,  Art.  Ev.  Homiletik . 

2  These  collegia  philobiblica  resembled  those  of  Wesley  and  the  young 
Methodists  at  Oxford. 

3  Pietism  was  defined  as  follows  : 

“  Was  ist  ein  Pietist  ?  der  Gottes  Wort  studirt 
Und  naeh  demselbcn  auch  ein  heilig  Leben  fiihrt.” 


382 


Calixt. 


for  temples  the  whitened  sepulchres  of  their  own  formalism. 
Spener  was  compelled  to  leave  Dresden.  Francke  and  his 
friends  were  driven  from  Leipzig  by  the  theological  faculty 
headed  by  J.  B.  Carpzov.  But  though  many  States  prohibited 
these  religious  meetings,  Pietism  found  a  home  at  the  new 
University  of  Halle,  and  became  a  powerful  factor  in  German. 
life-2  A  Church,  as  Calvin  said,  “  has  need  of  many  resurrec¬ 
tions,  and  the  need  is  never  greater  than  in  the  days  when 
genuine  piety  is  an  object  of  suspicion,  and  Enthusiasm 
becomes  the  red  spectre  of  orthodoxies  which  have  only  a 
name  to  live  when  they  are  dead. 

3.  A  third  powerful  protest  against  the  ossification  of 
religion  by  theological  Scholasticism  came  in  the  direction  of 
tolerance  and  culture.  Georg  Calixtus  (flfi56)  for  forty- 
two  years  professor  at  Helmstadt,  had  lived  through  the  fury 
of  the  Thirty  l^ears  War  ;  he  had  received  a  Humanist  train- 
ingj  and  in  his  early  travels  had  lived  among  Lutherans, 
among  Roman  Catholics,  and  in  the  Reformed  Churches.  In 
England  he  had  shared  the  enlightened  wisdom  of  Casaubon 
and  Ihuanus.  In  these  travels  he  had  learned  to  see  u  that 
faith  and  love  are  not  the  exclusive  possession  of  any  party,” 
and  to  say  with  Jerome  that  “  Christ  is  not  so  poor  as  to  have 
a  Church  only  in  Sardinia.”  3  His  watchwords  were  concord 
and  tolerance,  and  he  thought  that  they  might  be  found  by 
returning  to  early  Church  history,  and  leaving  the  confused 
whirl  of  contemporary  controversies.  He  was  one  of  the  last 
to  cherish  some  hope  of  a  reunion  with  Romanism  on  neutral 


attacked  by  Schelwig,  Carpzov,  Alberti,  Deutschmann,  and 
the  faculty  of  t\  ittenberg.  Francke  by  Mayer,  and  the  University  of  Leip¬ 
zig.  It  my  remark  seems  severe,  it  is  nor  more  so  than  that  of  Dorner 
Speaking  of  the  opponents  of  Pietism,  he  says  (ii.  205)  “Trusting  in  ‘  cor¬ 
rectness  of  doctrine  ’  they  surrendered  themselves  to  a  security  which  pleased 
itselt  wnh  dreams  of  a  florentissimus  status  ecclesiae,  and  ignored  the  fact 
that  they  had  themselves  adulterated  the  Gospel  into  a  law  of  dogma  and  a 
doctrinal  codex,  confused  nature  and  grace,  and  frittered  away  the  ideas  of 
faith  and  regeneration.  J 

See  Kurz,  ii.  207;  J.  IT.  and  C.  B.  Michaelis  and  their  pupil  Rambach 
belong  to  Halle,  and  6000  theological  students  had  been  educated  at  Halle 
before  Francke  died.  ’ 

3  He wrote  De  tolerantia  Heformatoi'um  and  Dcsiderium  Conconliae  Eccl 
sarcicndae,  16o0. 


383 


Modern  Philo  soph  y. 

grounds,  a  hope  defeated  as  much  by  the  sectarianism  of 
the  Jesuits  as  by  the  vehemence  of  the  Lutherans.  His 
Syncretism  as  it  was  derisively  called,1  was  partly  dependent 
on  a  return  to  a  truer  estimate  of  Scripture.  Abandoning  the 
extravagant  aberrations  of  prevalent  bibliolatry  he  recalled 
the  old  distinction  between  revelatio  and  assistentia  divina.2 
He  did  not  wholly  extinguish  the  co-ordinate  authority  of 
Faith,  and  regarding  inspiration  as  a  grace  of  superintendency 
he  mitigated  “the  more  than  Alexandrian  asperities”  of  the 
prevailing  view.3 

4.  Again,  the  dawning  philosophy  of  modem  days  was  not 
without  its  liberating  influence.  Descartes  (t  1650)  was  not 
thinking  only  of  philosophers  when  in  his  discourse  on  Method 
he  spoke  of  “speculations  of  which  men  are  more  vain  the 
more  remote  they  are  from  common  sense,  because  they  will 
then  have  been  forced  to  employ  more  ingenious  subtlety  to 
render  them  plausible.”  His  views  were  vehemently  opposed 
by  Voetius,  a  theological  professor  at  Utrecht,  who  secured 
from  the  States  a  prohibition  of  his  philosophy.  Calixt 
died  in  the  very  year  (1656)  in  which  Spinoza  was  excom¬ 
municated  with  the  most  awful  curses  by  his  enraged 
co-religionists.  No  one  can  read  the  works  of  that  virtuous 
and  keen-sighted  thinker  without  feeling  that  he  was  at  any 
rate  “  almost  a  Christian.”  His  pantheism  resulted  from 
philosophic  reaction  against  the  crude  anthropomorphic 


1  Because  Calixtus,  like  the  Cretans ,  entered  into  unscrupulous  alliances  ! 
This  derivation  is  given  by  Plutarch,  DeFrat.  Amove.  I  do  not  know  on  what 
authority  Littre  and  others  derive  it  from  avv  Kcpav.  In  modern  times,  the 
use  of  the  word  had  been  revived  by  Erasmus  in  a  letter  to  Melanchthon. 
The  anonvmous  Historia  Syne  relist  ica  of  Calov  was  answered  by  F.  U.  Calixt 
in  his  Via  ad  Pacem,  1700.  Syncretism,  says  Gass,  “means  the  overthrow 
of  all  ecclesiastical  exclusiveness  by  a  deeper  conception  of  the  doctrines  in 
question.” 

-  In  this  lie  was  followed  by  Grotins,  Clericus,  kc.  See  the  valuable 
article  by  Tholuck  on  Inspiration  in  Herzog.  1  have  not  specially  noticed  the 
exegesis  of  the  Socinians  because  it  was  so  utterly  and  inexcusably  bad.  See 
Reuss,  §  556  ;  Diestel,  pp.  3S7-534 ,fy. 

3  Scripture  is  not  called  divine  because  everything  which  is  contained  in  it 
ought  to  be  imputed  to  a  special  divine  revelation.”  liespons.  thes.  72.  Pro¬ 
fessor  Ladd  ( Doctrine  of  Sacred  Script,  ii.  212  214)  shows  that  the  views  of 
Calixt  resembled  those  of  Baxter,  Doddridge,  and  Lowth.  Monographs  on 
Calixt  and  the  Syncretism  have  been  written  by  Schmid,  Henke,  and  Gass. 


Bohme. 


384 

views  in  which  he  had  been  trained.  He  is  the  intellectual 
successor  of  Moses  Maimonides,  the  intellectual  precursor  of 
Moses  Mendelssohn,  and  he  anticipated  many  of  the  critical 
and  hermeneutic  views  which  are  now  widely  accepted. 
Lessing  reverenced  him  ;  Goethe  named  him  with  Shak- 
speare  and  Linnaeus  as  one  of  the  masters  of  his  mind  ; 

and  Hegel  were  deeply  influenced  by  his  method 
and  his  thoughts.  It  was  not  till  a  century  later  that  his 
influence  was  felt  in  exegesis,  but  when  it  was  felt  men 
remembered  his  saying,  that  “  though  it  was  not  wholly 
necessary  to  know  Christ  after  the  flesh,  yet  it  was  necessary 
to  know  that  Eternal  Son  of  God,  that  is  the  Eternal  Wisdom 
of  God,  which  has  manifested  itself  in  all  things,  especially  in 
the  mind  of  man,  and  far  most  of  all  in  Christ  Jesus.  .  . 
And  because  the  wisdom  was  chiefly  manifested  by  Jesus 
Christ,  therefore  his  disciples  preached  it,  so  far  as  it  had 
been  revealed  by  Him  to  them.”  It  may  at  least  be  hoped 
that  he  who  wrote  this,  and  who  also  lived  a  life  of  singular 

O 

moral  nobleness  and  beauty,— whatever  may  have  been  his 
errors, — was  “  not  far  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven/'’ 1 

5.  The  liberation  of  the  Church  was  further  helped  on, 
fifthly,  by  mysticism.  Though  few  now  read  the  works  of 
J.  Bohme,  “the  mighty  cobbler  of  Gorlitz”  (t  1624),  his  in¬ 
fluence  was  widely  felt.  His  Aurora  ocler  Morgenro the  im 
Auf gang,  was  a  sort  of  commentary  on  the  Book  of  Genesis, 
rich  in  poetic  feeling  and  profound  speculation.  In  England 
he  was  reverently  studied  by  William  Law.  In  Germany  the 
philosophies  tmtonicus  as  he  was  called,  prepared  the  way 
for  a  revival  of  spirituality,  and  of  that  “enthusiasm”  which 
to  a  formal  religion  was  a  favourite  object  of  denunciation. 
How  touching  is  the  story  of  his  death  !  “  Ho  you  hear  that 

\  Spinoza  derived  his  views  of  interpretation  in  part  from  Ibn  Ezra  and 
Mamiomdes.  He  held  that  Scripture  was  its  own  best  interpreter.  Novalis 
calls  nim^  a  God-intoxicated  man.”  Schleiermacher  did  not  hesitate  to  write 
ol  him,  Offer  reverently  with  me  a  lock  to  the  Manes  of  holy  rejected 
Spinoza.  .  .  In  holy  innocence  and  deep  humility  he  beheld  Elis  imao-e  in  the 
eternal  World.  .  .  He  was  full  of  religion  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit.”  He 
influenced  Lessing,  Goethe,  Schelling,  Hegel,  and  foreshadowed  the  views  on 
the  one  hand  of  Sender  and  Eichhorn,  on  the  other  of  Strauss,  Baur,  and 
Lenan.  (For  his  critical  views  see  especially  Capp.  viii.-x.  of  his  Tractatus.) 


Cocceius. 


385 


sweet  harmonious  music  ?  ”  he  asked  of  his  son.  “  No,” 
replied  the  youth.  “  Open  the  door,”  said  Bohme,  “  that  you 
may  the  better  hear  it.”  It  would  have  been  well  for  the 
Church  of  Osiander  and  of  Calov,  had  it  opened  the  door  a 
little  more  widely  to  hear  the  heavenly  music  which  soothed 
the  deathbed  of  Jacob  Bohme. 

6.  Two  other  powerful  movements  yet  remain  to  be 

characterised  the  influence  of  Cocceius,  and  the  growth  of 
criticism. 

John  Koch,  Professor  at  Leyden  (f  1669),  profoundly 
affected  the  religious  tendencies  of  his  day.1  Few  theologians 
have  succeeded  in  doing  at  once  so  much  good  and  so 
much  harm  by  their  special  opinions.2  On  the  one  hand  his 

Federal  Theology,  the  conception  of  a  double  covenant, — 
one  of  nature  and  works  with  Adam  in  innocence,  the  other  of 
giace  and  faith  in  Christ, — helped  once  more  to  lead  men 
back  to  the  Bible.  His  theology  became  in  fact  a  soteriology, 
a  history  of  Bedemption.  He  gave  predominance  to  the 
guidance  rather  than  to  the  election  of  grace,  and  almost  for 
the  first  time  developed  the  correct  and  fruitful  conception  of 
the  progressiveness  of  Revelation  as  the  ruling  principle  of 
theological  inquiry.  Being  independent,  he  was,  after  the 
fashion  of  his  day,  charged  with  Judaism,  Chiliasm 
Pelagianism,  and  all  imaginable  heresies ;  but  he  helped  to 
expel  the  Aristotelian  dogmatics  which  passed  for  orthodoxy, 
levived  the  original  investigation  of  Scripture,  and  in  his 
beautiful  little  book,  Summa  Doctrinae  de  Foedere ,  taught  his 
contemporaries  to  study  the  structure  of  the  Bible,  and 
to  abandon  the  unfruitful  method  of  splitting  it  into  isolated 
texts.3  Unhappily,  however,  the  good  which  Cocceius  did  in 

1  Cocceius  was  born  in  1602.  He  was  a  professor  first  at  Bremen,  then  at 
Fianecker  (1636-1650),  and  then  at  Leyden.  As  a  youth  he  had  been 
influenced  by  the  orthodoxy  of  Maccovius,  the  Puritanism  of  Ames,  and  the 
scholarship  of  A  mama. 

See  Pfaff,  Hist.  Lit.  Theol.  i.  14;  Alb.  v.  d.  Flier,  De  J.  Cocceio  onti- 
scholastico,  1859;  Schrock,  viii.  344,  sq.  ;  Gesenius  in  Ersch  und  Grfiber’s 
tneykl.  18  ;  and  Ebrardin  Herzog.  J.  H.  Majus  said  of  him,  “  Animum 
imprimis  ad  fontes  intendit,  et  nulli  se  mctncipavit.” 

^Jie  dispensation  of  (.race  after  the  Fall  was  treated  under  three  divisions  : 

1.  Before  the  Law.  2.  Under  the  Law.  3.  Under  the  Gospel.  He  thought 

C  C 


386 


Cocceius. 


one  direction  he  undid  in  another.  He  emancipated  exegesis 
from  a  dull  tyranny,  but  subjected  it  to  an  extravagant 
typology.1  He  was  the  first  to  sanction  a  system  of  parallels 
between  the  Old  and  New  Testament  of  which  many  were 
purely  fanciful.2  His  flexible  axiom  that  the  words  of 
Scripture  signify  all  that  they  can  be  made  to  signify 3 
introduced  a  false  plurality  of  meanings,  by  a  fatal  confusion 
between  the  actual  sense  and  all  possible  applications.  Under 
this  system  passages  in  Isaiah  became  actual  prophecies  of  the 
dispute  between  the  successors  of  Constantine,4  the  history 
of  Karl  the  Great,5  and  the  death  of  Gustavus  Adolphus.6 
In  reading  Gurtler’s  Systema  Theologiae,  we  can  see  why 
Cocceianism  became  proverbial  for  artificiality  and  caprice.7 
The  movement  begun  by  Cocceius,  like  almost  every 
other  movement  during  this  epoch,  seems  by  some 
fatality  to  have  been  cursed  by  the  falsehood  of  extremes. 
Fortunately,  howTever,  Cocceius  had  successors  like  F.  Bur- 
mann,  Witsius,  Van  Til,  Yitringa,  and  Lampe,  who  toned  down 
the  exuberance  of  his  system,  and  made  important  contribu¬ 
tions  to  Scriptural  interpretation.8 

7.  The  growth  of  criticism  helped  still  more  completely 
to  break  down  the  hard  superstition  on  which  the  whole 
system  of  Protestant  Scholasticism  was  based.  First  among 
the  names  of  the  critics  who  rendered  this  service  stands 
that  of  Ludovicus  Cappellus  (tl722).  His  Critica  Sacra,  jmb- 

that  the  Old  Testament  provides  a  praeter-mission  (ir apeais)  but  not  a  remis¬ 
sion  (oupecrLs)  of  sins.  Eom.  iii.  25. 

1  The  current  phrase  of  the  day  was  “  Grotium  nusquam  in  sacris  literis 
invenire  Christum,  Cocceium  ubique.”  See  p.  380,  n.  i. 

2  See  Yitringa,  Typus  Dodrinae  Propheticae  ;  Venema,  Methodus  Prophetiea, 
Praef.  1775  ;  Lampe,  De  Seala  Jacobi  ;  Cremer,  Antiquitates  Theol.  Typicae  ; 
Kurz,  ii.  ;  Oehler,  Old  Test.  Theol.  i.  42  ;  Klausen,  Hermen.  282  ;  Dorner, 
ii.  35,  sq.  Gass,  Gesch.  d.  Prot.  Dogmatik,  ii.  319. 

3  “  Id  significant  verba  quod  significare  possunt  in  integra  oratione  sic  ut 
omnino  inter  se  conveniant”  ( ap .  Roman.  §  35).  So  too  Turretin,  De  Interpr. 
Sacr.  p.  126. 

4  Is.  xix.  2.  5  Is.  xxiii.  11. 

6  Is.  xxxiiii.  7. 

7  I  have  already  quoted  his  unwise  principle  that  every  prophetic  applica¬ 
tion  attached  to  a  passage  was  foreseen,  and  therefore  was  intended. 

8  Yitringa  (t  1722)  tried  to  unite  the  methods  of  Grotius  and  Cocceius. 
Some  of  the  Cocceians  were  much  influenced  by  Cartesianism.  Meyer  in  his 
Philosophia  S.  Scripturae  called  Cartesianism  the  only  key  to  Scripture. 


Growth  of  Criticism. 


387 


lished  in  1650,  marked  an  epoch.1  Among  the  extravagances 
of  reformed  theology  had  been  an  assertion  as  to  the  miracu¬ 
lously  perfect  integrity  of  the  text.  Gerhard  had  maintained 
that  it  had  neither  been  corrupted  by  the  malice  of  the  J ews 
nor  by  the  carelessness  of  copyists.  Cappellus  admitted  that 
there  had  been  no  wilful  corruption ;  but  from  parallel 
passages,  from  the  differences  in  numbers,  from  New  Testa¬ 
ment  quotations,  from  references  in  Philo,  Josephus,  and  the 
Fathers,  from  the  Keri  and  Kethib,  from  the  readings  of  Ben 
Asher  and  Ben  Naphtha li,  from  the  Jewish  and  Samaritan 
MSS.,  and  from  the  variations  of  the  LXX.  and  the  Para- 
phrasts,  he  proved  that  the  Masoretic  text  furnishes  number¬ 
less  examples  of  the  infirmity,  somnolence,  and  ignorance  of 
Scribes.2  After  the  publication  of  his  book  no  reasonable 
man  could  doubt  that  the  Jewish  notion  of  a  correspondence 
of  the  Holy  Books  with  the  supposed  autographs  of  Moses  or 
Ezra  down  to  the  very  apices  of  the  letters,  was  a  preposterous 
fiction.  Robert  Stephens  said  that  he  had  found  2,384 
variations  in  the  oldest  MSS.  of  the  New  Testament.  It 
was  admitted  on  all  sides  that  these  variations  did  not  affect 
a  single  matter  of  faith,  and  scholars  like  Sixtinus  Amama, 
Grotius,  Brian  Walton,  Bochart,  TJssher,  Voss,  Hody,  and 
others,  at  once  accepted  the  conclusion  of  Cappellus.  But 
since  these  facts  tended  to  show  how  untenable  was  the 
theory  of  verbal  dictation,  they  were  met  with  strange 
absurdities.  Pfeiffer,  with  unconscious  irreverence,  argued 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  used  paronomasias  for  our  delight 
and  advantage ;  that  He  showed  His  freedom  by  altering 
proper  names ;  that,  for  instance,  by  omitting  some  letters  in 

1  The  Exercitationes  Biblicae  of  J.  Morinus  (1633)  were  much  cruder.  But 
it  is  remarkable  that,  whilst  Protestants  vehemently  opposed  the  publication 
of  the  Critica  Sacra ,  the  Catholics  Morinus  and  Petavius  procured  the  royal 
imprimatur  for  it.  In  the  controversy  raised  by  the  book  the  Buxtorffs,  with 
all  their  learning,  were  absolutely  defeated,  because  their  views  on  biblical 
dictation  led  them  to  hold  that  the  Masoretic  punctuation  originated  with 
Moses,  or  at  least  with  Ezra. 

2  “  Nobis  jam  satis  est  utcumque  probasse  argumentis  non  omnino  contem- 
nendis,  puncta  ilia  hebraica  a  Masorethis  esse  excogitata,  et  textui  sacro 
addita,  circa  Christi  Ann.  500,  et  saltern  post  400”  (Cappellus,  Critica 
Sacra ,  ii.  28,  p.  790). 


c  c  2 


388 


Growth  of  Criticism. 

the  acrostic  Psalms  He  meant  to  indicate  some  pause  in 
music,  or  to  call  attention  to  some  hidden  mystery. 

“  Sic  placuit  Domino  dicere  plura  nefas .” 1 

The  two  Buxtorffs  tried  to  prove  that  even  the  vowel 
points  were  inspired,  and  that  to  hold  this  was  necessitated 
by  the  doctrine  of  Scripture  inspiration.2  That  Hebrew  was 
a  divine  and  primaeval  language,  and  that  the  present  square 
character  was  at  least  as  old  as  Ezra,  were  equally  maintained 
with  unavailing  casuistry.3  As  the  labours  of  Jewish  scholars 
like  Joseph  Albo  and  Elias  Levita  became  known,  and  were 
adopted  by  all  the  most  eminent  scholars  of  Europe,  these 
masses  of  obscurantism  were  scattered  like  mist  before  the 
sun.  It  soon  became  a  matter  of  certainty  that  the  text  of 
the  Bible  had  suffered  from  exactly  the  same  causes  as  those 
which  have  affected  the  text  of  every  other  ancient  writing 
in  the  world.4 

III.  These  seven  movements  then,  each  in  its  own  way, 
corrected  the  false  dip  of  the  balance,  and  contributed  to  the 
advancement  of  sound  learning  and  true  religion.  We  may 
thank  God  that,  though  many  a  separate  wave  seems  to 
retreat,  the  great  tide  of  truth  slowly  advances  through 
the  centuries  ; — 

For  while  the  tired  waves,  vainly  breaking, 

Seem  here  no  painful  inch  to  gain, 

Far  back  through  creeks  and  inlets  making 
Comes  silent,  flooding  in,  the  main. 

We  may  thank  God  also  that  no  age  is  ever  entirely 
barren,  that  no  honest  human  labour  is  ever  wholly  lost. 
Even  when  the  sway  of  d  priori  dogma  was  least  resisted,  the 


1  On  the  bad  principle  of  inventing  mysteries  to  account  for  variations,  it 
was  said  that  the  Yod  in  "HfcsD,  as  read  in  Ps.  xxii.  17,  wasaw  diminutivum, 
and  stood  for  1230,  the  years  between  the  writing  of  the  Psalm  and  the 
Crucifixion  !  (Diestel,  p.  328). 

2  Heidegger  (Loci,  ii.  §  58)  proved  it  by  the  command  to  Moses  to  write  the 
words  on  stones  ‘plainly  ! 

3  E.g.  by  Hugh*  Broughton,  Buxtorff,  Fuller,  Bayle,  Dilherr,  Kircher, 
Leusden,  Morinus,  Loscher,  Carpzov,  &c.  (Diestel,  p.  384). 

4  Kennicott  came  to  the  conclusion  that  we  have  no  Hebrew  MS.  of  the 
Old  Testament  older  than  A.n.  1100,  and  that  the  oldest  are  full  of  clerical 
errors.  Bengel  was  perhaps  the  first  to  attempt  the  classification  of  MSS. 


389 


Increase  of  Knowledge. 

Church  was  gaining  wisdom  from  the  toils  of  the  learned  and 
the  meditations  of  the  good.  Such  well-known  works  on 
various  branches  of  Scriptural  chronology,  archaeology,  geo¬ 
graphy,  natural  history,  history,  and  general  illustration, 
as  those  of  Schultens,  the  Buxtorffs,  Castell,  Hottinger' 
Heidegger,  Celsius,  Bochart,  Reland,  Vitringa,  Glass,  Schroder, 
Ussher,  Spannheim,  Selden,  Buddeus,  Pfeiffer,  Prideaux, 
Hey  ling,  Wahner,  Scaliger,  Petavius,  Goodwin,  Lightfoot, 
Schottgen,  and  many  others,  were  storehouses  of  valuable 
material  which  were  not  affected  by  current  quarrels,  or  “  the 
®  theologians,  from  which  Melanchthon  had  yearned 
to  be  delivered.1  And  when  tendencies  and  movements 
proved  themselves  to  be  inefficient,  because  of  a  large  inter¬ 
mixture  of  error,  or  because  they  spent  their  force  and  had  to 
be  carried  on  by  weaker  agencies,  they  left  their  legacy  to 
men  who  availed  themselves  of  all  their  elements  of  truth  and 
goodness.  Mysticism  in  the  followers  of  Bohme  degenerated 
into  a  self-deceiving  claim  of  illumination.  Pietism,  so  pure 
and  hopeful  in  its  origin,  'withered  into  an  inquisitorial 
hypocrisy.  Cocceianism  deteriorated  into  arbitrary  super¬ 
stition.  The  Syncretistic  movement  split  into  sections  by 
which  Romanism  and  Indifferentism  alike  profited.  Free 
criticism,  looked  on  by  orthodoxy  with  a  jealous  eye,  was  too 
apt  to  ally  itself  with  an  unspiritual  philosophy.  But  though 
every  one  of  these  influences  which  had  endeavoured  to 
strike  life  into  the  decay  of  religion  had  gradually  dwindled, 
they  produced  men  of  vast  erudition,  of  conspicuous  wisdom, 
and  of  exemplary  holiness.  Their  combined  value  was  seen 
in  some  whose  names  will  stand  recorded  for  ever  among 
those  whom  the  Church  honours  and  loves.  Among  these 
I  will  here  select  three:  Count  Zinzendorf,  John  James 
Wetstein,  and  John  Albert  Bengel. 

i.  In  ZiNZENDORF,  and  his  Moravian  brotherhoods,  we  see 
the  undying  force  of  Practical  Christianity.  He  was  born  in 

1  See  Reuss,  £  566  ;  Diestel,  §§  458  ff.  The  Critica  Sacra  were  published 
in  London,  1660,  and  Poole’s  Synopsis  in  1669.  Both  books  were  highly 
creditable  to  English  industry  and  scholarship. 


390 


Zinzendorf. 


1700,  and  as  a  child  had  received  the  blessing  and  happy 
prophecy  of  his  aged  godfather  Philip  Spener.  Even  as  a 
schoolboy  under  Francke,  at  the  High  School  of  Halle,  he 
had  founded  among  his  schoolfellows  “  the  order  of  the  grain 
of  mustard  seed/’  of  which  the  token  was  a  gold  ring  in¬ 
scribed  with  the  words  “No  man  liveth  to  himself/’  Im¬ 
pressed  by  an  Ecce  Homo  at  Diisseldorf  under  which  was  the 
inscription : — 

“  I  did  all  this  for  thee, 

What  hast  thou  done  for  me  ?  ”  1 

— impressed  also  during  his  travels  with  “  the  splendid  misery 
of  a  world  dying  of  envy  amid  its  own  pitiable  littlenesses,” 
he  determined  to  devote  his  life  to  the  cause  of  Christ.2  “  I 
have  but  one  passion,”  he  said,  “  and  it  is  He,  only  He.”  Like 
every  good  man  he  was  abused  and  misrepresented  by 
sectarian  bigotry.  So  busy  was  calumny  with  his  pure  name 
that  Frederick  William  of  Prussia  said  of  him  that  “  all  the 
devils  in  hell  could  not  lie  worse  than  he  had  been  lied  to 
about  Zinzendorf.”  But  his  pious  journeys  did  much  to 
bring  back  to  the  Church  the  love  of  Unity,  and  the  colonies 
which  he  planted  from  Greenland  to  Ethiopia,  from  Persia  to 
New  Guinea,  from  Russia  to  the  huts  of  the  Hottentots,  not 
only  renewed  the  lost  ideal  of  missionary  activity,  but  showed 
to  the  world  the  power  of  spiritual  holiness. 3  If  we  would 
estimate  the  extent  and  blessedness  of  his  work,  let  us  not 
forget  that  the  deep  practical  piety  of  John  Wesley  was 
matured  in  a  Moravian  brotherhood ;  and  that  Schleiermacher 
wrote  from  a  Moravian  colony  in  1802,  “  Here  it  was  that  for 
the  first  time  I  woke  to  the  consciousness  of  the  relations  of 
man  to  a  higher  world.  .  .  After  all  that  I  have  passed  through 
I  have  become  a  Moravian  again,  only  of  a  higher  order.”  4 

1  “  Hoc  feci  pro  te, 

Quid  facis  pro  me  ?  ” 

2  In  founding  tlie  community  of  Herrnhut  he  was  deeply  influenced  by  the 
PmUo  disciplinae  of  the  Bohemian  Bishop,  Amos  Comenius. 

3  Perhaps  his  most  characteristic  thoughts  are  to  be  found  in  his  GedanJcen 
iiber  Evangelische  Wahrheiten,  Gnadau,  1840.  His  best-known  hymns  are 
“Jesu,  geh’  voran,”  and  “Christi  Blut  und  Gerechtigkeit,  ”  (Jesu,  Thy  blood 
and  righteousness). 

4  On  Ziuzendorf,  see  Bishop  E.  de  Schweinitz,  in  Herzog’s  Encylcl.;  Tholuck, 
Verm.  Schriftcn,  i.  6  ;  V.  von  Ense,  Leben  Zinzendorf s,  1846  ;  Bonet,  Le  Comte 


Wetstein. 


391 


ii.  In  John  James  Wetstein,  Professor  at  Basle  (f  1754), 
we  see  all  that  is  best  in  this  epoch  on  the  side  of  learning 
and  criticism.  In  his  Libelli  ad  Grisin  atque  Interpretationem 
Nov.  Testamenti ,  he  dwelt  on  the  necessity  for  considering  the 
New  Testament  on  its  human  side  as  an  historical  and  literary 
product,  and  of  devoting  to  it  a  free  and  unprejudiced  study.1 
The  same  rules  hold,  he  says,  for  the  interpretation  of 
Scripture  as  for  that  of  other  books.  The  sense  of  its  words 
and  phrases  must  be  learnt  by  studying  the  usage  of  the 
writers  and  of  their  contemporaries.  Its  language  is  in¬ 
fluenced  by  the  times  in  which  it  was  written  and  the  needs, 
peculiarities,  and  habits  of  thought  of  the  persons  to  whom 
it  is  addressed.  Wetstein  s  invaluable  labours  on  the  text 
and  meaning  illustrate  the  remark  of  Goethe,  that  “  the 
Bible  becomes  more  beautiful  the  more  we  study  it, — that  is 
the  more  clearly  we  see  that  every  word  has  received  a  certain 
distinct  character  according  to  the  separate  conditions  of  time 
and  place  when  it  was  given.”  He  was  one  of  the  ablest 
pioneers  in  the  renewed  and  more  sober  Scriptural  labours  of 
the  eighteenth  century.  His  New  Testament  was  only 
published  in  1751,  four  years  before  his  death.  But  he  had 
devoted  to  its  preparation  a  life  of  study.2  He  was,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  like  all  the  best  workers  in  this  field, 
accused  of  heresy,  and  was  compelled  to  give  up  his 
Professorship  at  Basle  for  one  in  the  Remonstrants  College  at 
Amsterdam.  3  There  he  carried  on  and  improved  the  best 
labours  of  Grotius.  His  commentary  is  one  of  the  richest 
repositories  of  classical  and  Rabbinic  illustration,  and  has,  to 
an  extent  almost  incredible,  been  rifled  again  and  again  by 
his  successors.  It  is  one  of  the  very  few  produced  in  the 


de  Zinzcndorf ,  1860  ;  Hagenbacli,  Germ .  Rationalism,  128-153  (E.  T.)  ; 
Kurz,  ii.  941,  sq.  ;  Dorner,  ii.  245-248  ;  Kahnis,  pp.  100- 105. 

1  Some  characteristic  quotations  from  his  Libelli  ad  Crisin  are  given  in 
Klausen,  Hermen.  298. 

2  Among  other  things  he  was  condemned  for  Arianism  and  Socinianism  in 
1730,  because  he  followed  the  now  all  but  universally  accepted  reading,  fcs  for 

in  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  See  Herzog,  Bible  Texts. 

3  He  succeeded  Clericus. 


392 


Bengal. 

seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries,  which  are  still  indis¬ 
pensable  to  the  student  of  Scripture. 1 

iii.  Still  greater  and  more  blessed,  as  well  as  somewhat 
earlier,  was  the  work  of  the  illustrious  Bengel  (f  1752).  2 
He  was  the  hen  and  continuator  of  all  that  was  best  in  Pietism 
and  Mysticism,  without  either  the  gloom  of  the  one  or  the 
sentimentality  of  the  other.  Orthodox  with  none  of  the  narrow 
blindness,  obstinate  creed- worship,  and  uninquiring  dulness 
of  passive  traditionalism  ;  exquisitely  open-minded  •  a  friend 
to  science  ;  a  friend  to  freedom ;  the  first  great  German  critic 
of  the  text  of  the  New  Testament ;  3  profoundly  humble  yet 
thoroughly  original,  he  towers  above  all  the  scholars  and 
theologians  of  the  Lutheran  Church.4  He  entirely  abandoned 
the  notion  of  mechanical  Inspiration,  which  then  erected  a 
bainei  against  all  spiritual  progress,  and  recognised  the 
distinct  individualities  and  manifold  differences  of  the  sacred 
writers.  He  regarded  Piety  not  as  the  loveless  personal 
pride  into  which  Pietism  had  degenerated,  but  as  an  appre¬ 
hension  of  the  sweetness,  gentleness,  and  grace  of  the  Divine 
mysteries.  He  regarded  Orthodoxy,  not  as  a  bristling 
antagonism  to  every  slight  deviation  from  current  confessions, 
but  as  a  faithful  adherence  to  all  primary  truths. 


, 1  Glockner,  Interpretandi  ratio  a  J.  J.  Wctsteino  adhibita,  1754,  and 
™le/°™na  7°  11S  ^.ew  Testament,  published  anonymously  in  1730.  He 
figure16  ^  dlstmguisl1  uncial  MSS-  by  capitals,  and  cursives  by  Arabic 

2  See  Burk  Bengel' s  Lelen  nnd  TFerhe,  1831  :  Waehtcr,  X  A.  Bengel 
Lebemalnss ,  &c.  Bengel  was  born  in  1687  at  Winnenden,  near  Stuttgart 
l  he  became  tutor  at  Denkeudorf.  In  1741  he  was  made  Bishop 

o  Herbrechtmgen.  His  Gnomon  was  first  published  in  1742  :  his  Avvaratus 
Criticus  and  New  Testament  in  1734.  •  apparatus 

.  3i  Pe  ejected  twenty-four  Greek  MSS.  and  some  Latin  ones,  as  enumerated 
Jo  11S  -Apparatus  Criticus.  He  boldly  pronounced  the  Doxology  in  Matt  vi 
13  to  be  spurious  His  excellent  rule  was  “  Put  nothing  into  the  Scriptures' 

dr’aW  and  Suffer  nothing  that  is  in  them  to  remain  hid.’’ 

trnll  ®™rks {Praefatio)'  on  the  uselessness  of  reading  and  refuting  a  multi- 

wlnVb  !  bmffleSS  ex®getlcal  conjectures,  or  of  refuting  all  the  views  from 
which  ve  differ,  would  have  helped,  if  attended  to,  to  clear  modern  commen¬ 
taries  of  much  useless  matter.  u 

<Vjef]east  t?1'tunate  part  of  his  influence  was  the  exaggerated  devotion  to 

wards  savV  ‘MiL  marve0!1?8  °f  fAPocfalyPtic  students.  But,  as  Principal  Ed- 
\\,u  is  says,  His  mar \  ellous  felicities  must  ever  remain  inimitable  and  he 

is  mighty  to  quicken  thought.”  On  1  Cor.  p.  xxxv. 


His  Greatness. 


393 


“As  to  things  indifferent/’  he  said,  “I  am  not  fond  of 
them,  but  the  cord  has  been  too  tightly  drawn.”  He  opposed 
all  too  stringent  subscriptions.  “  It  is  easy,”  he  said,  “  for  all 
who  are  content  to  live  on  like  the  rest  of  the  world,  to  be 
orthodox.  They  believe  what  was  believed  before  them,  and 
never  trouble  themselves  with  testing  it.  But  when  a  soul  is 
anxious  about  truth,  then  things  are  not  quite  so  easy.  How 
wrong  is  it  then  to  rush  in  upon  just  such  sensitive  souls,  to 
cross-question,  to  gag,  and  stun  them,  when  we  ought  on  the 
contrary,  to  give  them  liberty  of  speech  that  they  may  gain 
confidence,  and  suffer  themselves  to  be  led  aright.”  The 
fundamental  virtue  of  Bengel  was  perfect  conscientiousness,1 
and  his  fundamental  merit  as  an  exegete  was  that  while  he 
was  diligent  about  minute  points  of  textual  criticism  and 
Greek  philology,  he  could  also,  like  Chrysostom  and  like 
Luther,  enter  into  the  very  soul  of  the  sacred  writers,  and 
reproduce  for  others  the  melodies  which  once  rang  in  their 
hearts. 2  Bengel  regarded  Scripture  not  as  a  dead  Oracle, 
but  as  a  living  organism — “as  an  incomparable  narrative  of 
the  divine  government  of  the  human  race  throughout  all 
ages  of  the  world,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  all 
things.”  Independent  though  perfectly  faithful,  it  was  his 
not  uncommon  lot  to  be  frowned  upon  by  professional 
theologians  and  the  clerical  order  in  general ;  but,  as  he 
himself  ventured  to  predict,  the  Church  has  at  last  learnt 
to  estimate  aright  the  value  of  his  labours.  His 
Gnomon  is  a  mine  of  priceless  gems.3  It  contains  sentence 


1  See  Kahnis,  E.  T.  p.  105.  Fresenins  in  his  funeral  sermon  called  Bengel 
“  An  angel  of  peace  who  was  as  pious  as  he  was  laborious,  as  child-like  as 
he  was  learned,  as  rich  in  spirit  as  he  was  acute  in  mind,  as  humble  as  he 
was  great.” 

2  The  necessity  for  a  psychological  element  in  the  highest  exegesis  was 
pointed  out  by  Schleiermacher.  It  was  recognised  also  in  the  Greek  Church. 
Dosithei  Confessio,  Qu.  i.  Kimmel,  Monumenta  Fidei,  i.  465. 

3  Gnomon  N.  T.  m  quo  ex  nattia  verborum  vi  simplicitas,  profunditas ,  con- 
cinnitas,  salubritas  sensuum  coelestium  indicatur.  Tub.  1742.  Its  merits  are 
gratefully  acknowledged  by  John  Wesley  in  his  Notes  to  the  New  Testament , 
1755.  Even  the  Apocalyptic  studies  to  which  Bengel  was  led  by  mystic  and 
Pietist  influences  give  proofs  of  his  power  and  insight.  See  Hartmann,  Art. 
“  Bengel  ”  in  Herzog.  In  his  case  at  any  rate  “  the  path  to  the  New  Jerusalem 
did  not  lie  near  the  madhouse.” 


394 


Death  of  Bengel. 

after  sentence  exquisitely  terse  and  finished,  and  throbbing 
with  spiritual  light.  Few  writers  have  so  admirably  succeeded 
m  expressing  in  a  few  words  the  inmost  purpose  of  each  of 
the  Epistles.  A  generation  crowded  with  writers  whose 
theology  abounded  in  mutual  anathemas  is  yet  redeemed 
from  the  charge  of  sterility  which  has  produced  such  a 
theologian  as  Bengel.  His  work  must  continue  to  have  its 
value  so  long  as  men  can  recognise  the  richest  fruits  of  a 
noble  intellect,  a  pure  spirit,  and  a  blameless  life. 1  “  Lord 

Jesus,  unto  Thee  I  live,  unto  Thee  I  suffer,  unto  Thee  I  die  ; 
Thine  I  am,  living  or  dying.”  These  words  were  repeated  to 
him  in  his  last  moments,  and  on  hearing  them  he  pointed 
with  his  right  hand  to  his  heart,  and  fell  asleep  in  peace.2 

.  Pleface  to  the  third  edition  of  the  Gnomon ,  his  son  gives  ns  some 

biographical  particulars  of  him.  Oetinger  beautifully  describes  his  death 
which  he  had  always  wished  to  be  “as  if  one  is  incidentally  called  out 
ot  doors  from  amidst  the  dust  of  his  daily  labours.” 

n  ti1  vaVG  not.  touched  in  this  Lecture  either  on  the  Puritan  or  the  Koman 

atholic  expositors,  not  only  because  I  had  no  space  at  command,  but  because, 
apart  from  their  theology,  they  added  no  new  impulse  and  contributed  no 
specially  original  element  to  Scripture  interpretation.  The  greatest  Puritan 
expositor  is  perhaps  Owen  (especially  in  his  Exposition  of  the  Hebrews ).  The 
best  Koman  Catholic  expositors  are  Estius  (f  1613)  and  Corn,  a  Lapide  (t  1637) 


“Deus  scientiarum  Dominus  est,  et  ipsi  praeparantur  cogitationes.' 
— 1  Sam.  ii.  3, 

“  Res  Dei,  Ratio.” — Tert.  De  Poenitent.  I. 

“  Christianity  is  all  for  practice,  and  so  mncli  time  as  is  spent  in 
quarrels  about  it  is  a  diminution  to  its  interest.  Men  inquire  so  much 
what  it  is,  that  they  have  but  little  time  left  to  be  Christians.  I  re¬ 
member  a  saying  of  Erasmus,  ‘  that  when  he  first  read  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  with  fear  and  a  good  mind,  with  a  purpose  to  understand  it  and 
obey  it,  he  found  it  very  useful  and  very  pleasant  ;  but  when,  after¬ 
wards,  he  fell  on  reading  the  vast  differences  of  commentaries,  then  he 
understood  it  less  than  he  did  before,  then  he  began  not  to  understand 
it  :  ’  for,  indeed,  the  truths  of  God  are  best  dressed  in  the  plain  culture 
and  simplicity  of  the  Spirit  ;  but  the  truths  that  men  commonly  teach 
are  like  the  reflections  of  a  multiplying-glass.  Eor  one  piece  of  good 
money  you  shall  have  forty  that  are  fantastical.”— Jeremy  Taylor, 
Via  Intelligentiae. 

«  Let  none  so  superstitiously  go  back  to  former  ages  as  to  be  angry 
with  new  opinions  and  displayings  of  light,  either  in  reason  or  religion. 
Who  dare  oppose  the  wisdom  and  goodness  of  God  if  He  shall  enamour 
the  world  with  the  beauty  of  some  pearls  and  jewels  which  in  former 
days  have  been  hid  or  trampled  on  ;  if  He  shall  discover  some  more 
light  upon  earth,  as  He  hath  let  some  new  stars  be  found  in  the 
heavens  ?  ” — Culverwell,  Light  of  Nature ,  p.  136. 

“  I  am  persuaded  that  the  Lord  hath  more  truths  yet  to  come  for  us 
out  of  His  Holy  word.  Neither  Luther  nor  Calvin  have  penetrated 
into  the  whole  Council  of  God.”— John  Robinson,  Farewell  Address  to 
the  Pilgrim  Fathers. 

“  The  Gospel  itself  rests  on  an  immovable  rock,  while  human  systems 
of  theology  are  everywhere  undergoing  a  purifying  process.  We  live 
in  the  time  of  a  great  crisis.”— Neander. 


LECTURE  VIII. 

f 

MODERN  EXEGESIS. 

“It  shall  come  to  pass  in  that  day  that  the  light  shall  not  ‘be  clear,  nor 
dark  .  .  .  but  it  shall  come  to  pass  at  evening  time  it  shall  be  light. 
Zech.  xiv.  6,  7. 

There  are  three  reasons  which  give  peculiar  difficulty  to 
the  treatment  of  the  final  phases  of  Scripture  interpretation. 
One  is  their  complexity,  and  the  multiplication  of  their 
literary  memorials ;  a  second  is  the  rapidity  with  which 
they  vary  from  decade  to  decade  in  consequence  of  that  sus¬ 
ceptibility  to  surrounding  influences  which  marks  a  literary 
age  ;  a  third  is  the  impossibility  of  forming  a  final  impression 
of  movements  which  have  not  yet  attained  their  full 
development. 

The  disruption  of  Protestant  Scholasticism  was  hastened 
and  completed  by  philosophic  inquiries.  The  malady  of 
scepticism  had  been  rendered  more  acute  by  the  un¬ 
skilful  violence  of  a  self-styled  orthodoxy.  Such  books  as 
Voltaire’s  La  Bible  enjin  Expliqu&e  were  the  natural  Nemesis  of 
such  books  as  Calov’s  Biblia  Lllustrata.  The  furious  squabbles 
of  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Churches  about  the  arcana  of 
Theology  had  paved  the  way  for  English  deists,  French 
infidels,  and  German  neologians.1  The  gravity  and  gentleness 
of  Spinoza’s  manner,  no  less  than  his  keen  sagacity,  had 

1  “  So  long  as  I  see  that  one  of  the  chief  of  Christ’s  commandments,  to 
love  our  enemies,  is  not  better  observed  than  it  is,  so  long  shall  I  doubt 
whether  those  who  give  themselves  out  as  Christians  are  really  such  ” 
(Lessing). 


398 


Wolf}. 

/  given  weight  to  the  criticisms  of  his  Exadaius  Theologico- 
« Edicts,  and,  crude  as  some  of  them  were^lmTendereda  real 
service  by  enforcing  attention  to  that  human  element  of 
Scripture,  which  he  had  probably  been  taught  to  recognise  by 
the  writings  of  Maimonides.  His  “  Pantheism  ”  was  opposed 
by  Leibnitz  (f  1716),  who  substituted  for  it  the  theory  of 
self-subsisting  monads  held  in  union  by  a  pre-established 
harmony.  Leibnitz  was  a  hearty  friend  to  Christianity,  and 
he  so  strongly  desired  to  bring  theology  into  the  circle  of  the 
exact  sciences,  that  in  his  Theodicctea  he  pledged  himself  to 
prove,  if  not  the  objective  certainty,  yet  at  least  the  possibility 
of  the  deepest  Christian  mysteries — even  of  the  Trinity,  the 
Incarnation,  the  Eucharist.1  Wolff  (f  1754),  systema¬ 
tising  the  methods  of  Leibnitz  in  a  mathematical  form,2 
aimed  at  deducing  the  truths  of  revelation  from  the  abstract 
ideas  of  the  mind.  In  spite  of  his  pedantic  formalism,  he 
roused  enthusiasm  among  the  students  of  Halle.  He  was 
angrily  opposed  by  the  Pietists,  who  saw  in  his  doctrines 
a  fatalistic  tendency  which  would  destroy  all  interest  in 
revealed  religion.  They  were  right  in  their  instinctive 
conviction  that  Christianity  has  nothing  to  gain  from 
precarious  arguments  in  favour  of  its  abstract  possibility. 
An  address  in  which  Wolff  had  extravagantly  eulogised 
the  moral  teachings  of  Confucius  was  made  the  pretext 
for  his  banishment  on  pain  of  the  gibbet  from  Halle  and 
from  the  whole  kingdom  of  Prussia.  Thus  failed  the  earliest 

Leibnitz  added  the  principle  of  the  sufficient  reason”  as  a  criterion  of 
truth  to  Aristotle’s  “  principle  of  contradiction.”  “  The  great  foundation  of 
mathematics,”  he  says  in  his  correspondence  with  Dr.  Clarke,  “is  the  prin¬ 
ciple  of  contradiction  or  identity ;  i.e.  that  a  proposition  cannot  be  true  and 
false  at  the  same  time.  But  in  order  to  proceed  from  Mathematics  to  treat 
1  kilosophy  another  principle  is  requisite  (as  I  have  observed  in  my  Theodicaea ), 

1  mean  the  principle  of  the  sufficient  reason,  or  in  other  words,  that  nothing 
happens  without  a  reason  why  it  should  be  so  rather  than  otherwise.  Now 
by  this  single  principle  can  be  demonstrated  the  Being  of  a  God,”  &c. 

\  ollii’s7  c^f  works  were  Vernunftige  Gedanken  von  Gott,  der  Welt , 
iind  der  Seel e  (1719),  and  V.  G.  von  der  Menschen  Thun  und  Lassen  (1721) 
fie  studied  mathematics,  methodi  gratia,  in  order  to  give  diligence  to  reduce 
theology  to  incontrovertible .  certainty.  Even  his  opponent,  Lange,  had  a 
simnai  notion,  and  just  at  this  period  there  arose  an  unprofitable  fashion  of 
hairsplitting  analysis  and  dreary  tabulation.”  W0iff’s  banishment  was 
hastened  by  stupid  jests  as  to  “  prae-established  harmony,”  at  Frederic 
\\  imam  s  “  tobacco- Parliament.  ” 


Lessing. 


399 


attempt  to  reconcile  a  nascent  philosophy  with  an  old 
religion.  But  the  expulsion  of  .Wot^andHris  subsequent 
triumphant  recall,  practically  became  the  death-blow  of 
Pietism  which  had  outlived  its  functions,  and  hadLsmatk-mto 
n  aystp.m  of  m  orhi4-dhnaticism  main  tain  pH  Sy4ntprisitarial 

forms. 

Meanwhile  many  movements  arose,  which,  in  the  dearth  of 
a  free  and  spiritual  holiness,  developed  destructive  tendencies. 
Mankind  can  never  long  be  satisfied  with  vague  eudaemonism 
and  half-hearted  compromise.  Lessing  (f  1781)  was  as 
little  hostile  to  Christianity  as  Leibnitz  and  Wolff  had  been, 
but  in  the  then  condition  of  Scriptural  studies  he  seems  to 
have  held  the  opinion  of  St.  Jerome,  that  almost  anything 
may  be  said  if  it  be  only  said  tentatively.  He  gave  an 
impulse  to  thought  rather  than  a  direction.  He  was  “  the 
versatile  Proteus”  of  his  age.  His  Nathan  der  Weise,  ex¬ 
quisite  in  its  spirit  of  tolerance,  was  weak  in  its  indifferentism, 
and  hardly  accords  with  his  own  fruitful  view  of  God  as 
the  educator  of  the  human  race.  He  was  opposed  to  Spinoza  s 
inert  eternity  of  substance.  He  wanted  something  better 
than  the  demonstrations  of  Wolff  and  his  followers,  that 
Christianity  contained  nothing  against  the  principium  con¬ 
tradiction is,  and  the  principium  rationis  sufficients.  There 
were  germs  of  truth  in  his  belief  in  a  primitive  oral  Gospel ; 
in  his  separation  of  Christianity  from  the  weak  evidences  by 
which  it  is  often  supported ;  in  the  distinction  which  he  drew 
between  the  Christianity  of  the  heart  and  the  Christianity  of 
theologians,  and  even  between  the  Christian  religion  and 
the  religion  of  Christ.  His  quick  susceptibility  enabled  him 
to  grasp  truths  akin  to  those  held  alike  by  Mendelssohn  and 
Kant  and  Herder ;  and  if,  no  less  than  they,  he  lacked  the 
vivifying  power  of  personal  and  intellectual  union  with  the 
divine  humanity  of  Christ,  the  theology  of  his  day  must 
share  the  blame.  Protestant  divines  could  not  expect  the 
world  to  sympathise  with  them  in  their  attempts  to  hunt  up 
heresies  in  each  other’s  sermons.  Lessing  was  himself 
conscious  of  an  unsatisfied  want.  He  despised  the  popular 


400 


Reimarus. 


incredulity  as  “  a  botch work  of  ignoramuses.”  “  It  is  not  since 
yesterday  only,”  he  wrote  to  Mendelssohn,  “  that  I  have  felt 
anxious,  lest  in  casting  off  many  prejudices  I  may  not  also 
have  cast  away  much  which  I  may  have  again  to  fetch  back. 
If  I  have  not  done  so  already  it  is  because  I  fear  to  drag 
back  as  well  all  the  trash  into  the  house  again.” 

Lessing  did  not  himself  agree  with  the  Wolfenbuttel  frag¬ 
ments  of  Reimarus,1  but  his  publication  of  them  in  1774  pro¬ 
duced  a  profound  sensation.  It  was  from  the  absence  of 
adequate  answers  to  the  crude  negations  of  the  Fragmentist 
that  they  disseminated  far  and  wide  a  spirit  of  disbelief.  This 
disbelief  found  its  expression  in  the  so-called  “  enlightenment- 
period,”  which  resulted  from  the  influences  of  French  and 
English  deism.  In  one  respect  Reimarus  sank  even  lower  than 
the  French  deists.  Not  only  Rousseau,  but  even  Voltaire,  still 
preserved  an  overwhelming  sense  of  awe  before  the  personality 
of  Christ.  Reimarus  does  not  scruple  to  lay  profane  hands 
upon  His  holiness,  and  to  accuse  His  Apostles  of  sheer  deceit. 
Such  views  could  never  long  prevail.  The  worst  harm  done 
by  Reimarus  was  the  way  in  which  he  pointed  out  the 
variations  in  the  Gospel  narrative  of  the  Resurrection,  of 
which  the  post-Reformation  system  had  neither  prepared  men 
to  see  the  reconciliation,  nor  to  estimate  the  non-importance. 

1  Unhappily,  since  Scholasticism  and  Pietism  were  alike  dead, 
and  no  force  had  risen  to  replace  them,  the  epoch  of  a 
dreary  illuminism  was  only  met  on  the  other  side  by  timid 
,  concessions.  But  this  phase  of  opinion  was  short-lived.  It 
~\vas  specially  discredited  by  the  miserable  failure  and 
degradation  of  F.  A.  Bahrdt.  Though  “  smitten,”  as  he 
himself  confesses,  “  with  the  disease  of  levity,”  he  proclaimed 
himself  an  instrument  of  Providence  for  the  welfare  of  men, 

1  “  The  Bible  is  not  the  Spirit,  and  the  Bible  is  not  religion.  Consequently 
objections  against  the  latter,  as  well  as  against  the  Bible,  are  not  precisely 
objections  against  the  Spirit  and  religion.  For  the  Bible  evidently  contains 
more  than  belongs  to  religion,  and  it  is  a  mere  supposition  that  in  the  ad¬ 
ditional  matter  it  must  be  equally  infallible.  Moreover,  religion  existed 
before  there  was  a  Bible,  and  Christianity  before  Evangelists  and  Apostles 
had  written.”  Lessing,  IVerkc,  x.  10,  ed.  Lachmann.  “What  others,  even 
good  Lutherans,  have  asserted  of  whole  books  of  the  Bible,  we  may  surely  assert 
of  single  facts”  {id.  p.  137). 


Feeble  Apologists. 


401 

AUt^T  ^°Ses’  Confucius,  Socrates,  and  One  whose 

SBSlD  “Ttisegrt  7  mentWmng  ;t ecT 
w  wt of  polIHtion,and  die°d  m  “ 

for  ,t  1°  C1'Ude  infid6lit^  Whi0h  was  now  fostered 

through  the  feeblene^oftr1  Was  °nly  influential 

it  The  work  of  <?  e  opposition  which  was  offered  to 

force'  Of  th  C  Pe“er  and  FranCke  had  SPeQt  its  beneficent 
dogmatic  obstinacy.  Others  in  alarm  wer  wi Z  to  Zl “ 

- 

*  k  ^  holuck,  like  a  man  who  crvino*  thit  hi«  1 

*•*  «* s-L  -  ir 

.  Th«  ';»■;«  „f  ,he  church ...  be 

Clan  ]•  J6i  ST1UCere  hollness  of  men  like  Stelling  Oberlin 
Claudius,  and  Lavater.  Preachers  wor«  r  •  ’ 

the  teaching  of  the  eirl  7  o  were  lmng,  among  whom 

fragrance  of  fl  »  \  P tlStS  stlU  “  Angered  like  the 

«”»  lik«  OcLc  3'  Jr*.^  “»  «“<l  T 

i££  izr^z:,  3 *•  f*  *  " 

divine  drum  I, t  T  7  hpS’  aUli’  as  he  quaffed  the 

the  goblet  inT?  U  P°Ur  Ijrofusely  over  the  sides  of 
fcobiet.  In  that  age,  too,  as  in  many  others, 

friends  in  tl,  (V  ,  Piet.r  hath  found 
Hath  flowed  from  lips  we^Sh 

h«*T3*r?"'  ,“e  ,o  ■*•“  “» ™~s  .m«  oi 

openlv  that  1  ’  ‘  pl  j  °glSt’  a  mathematician,  showed 

P  u  7  \hey  were  not  ashamed  of  Christ  or  of HU 

lospc  .  The  hymns  of  Gellert — the  Watts  of  p  * 

still  kept  alive  the  suirit  of  tl  n  .  f  German7— 

spun  ol  the  older  strains  which  had 

wor^f  Cnfet  °IKic0l“  The 

Ltssing  in  tiie  Church.  His  follower  nunit>  was  analogous  to  that  of 
filiation’').  l0ll0Wers  ^ere  called  Biuristie  (1)S2,  “UIq 

*  Even  Zinzeudorf  spoke  of  the  Halle  ((ll 

"  101,1  “o  on«  ca*Ls  Pie  dsts  but  them  Selves."  those  miserable  Christ  tans 


D  D 


402 


Early  Rationalists. 

glowed  in  the  lyra  Germanica.  Haller,  one  of  the  founders 
of  modern  physiology  (t  1777),  with  the  whole  strength  of  his 
genius  made  a  stand  against  the  growth  of  materialism. 
Euler  (h  1763),  one  of  the  greatest  mathematicians  of  his 
age,  ventured  even  in  Berlin,  and  surrounded  by  the  sceptics 
who  formed  the  court  of  Frederic  the  Great,  to  publish  in 
1747  his  Defence  of  Revelation  against  the  Attacks  of  Free¬ 
thinkers. 

Turning  to  works  which  bore  directly  on  exegesis  we  notice 
how  cold  was  the  orthodoxy  which  succeeded  the  best 
days  of  Pietism.  Amid  the  shallowness  of  the  current 
philosophic  views,  all  men  felt  the  necessity  of  recurring  to 
the  solid  ground  of  history.  But  even  these  historic  re¬ 
searches  partook  of  the  character  of  the  age.  They  lacked 
enthusiasm,  spontaneity,  and  faith.  The  critical  learning  and 
moderate  rationalism  of  MlCHAELlS  (t  1791)  and  Ernesti 
(f  1781)  represent  the  chief  efforts  to  elucidate  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments  on  principles  of  formal  philology. 
Michaelis  reduces  Moses  to  a  clever  statesman  who  gave  to 
utility  a  religious  sanction.1  He  was  followed  by  ElCHHORN 
and  Paulus  who,  with  all  their  learning,  could  find  no  bettei 
explanation  for  the  supernatural  element  in  both  dispensations 
than  a  theory  of  mistake,  hyperbole,  and  ignorance.  The 
naturalism  of  Paulus  received  its  death-blow  from  the  mordant 
sarcasm  of  Strauss.  Ernesti  was,  perhaps,  the  hist  to  foi mu- 
late  with  perfect  clearness  the  principle  which  has  been  much 
discussed  in  our  own  day,  a  that  the  verbal  sense  of  Scriptuic 
must  be  determined  in  the  same  way  in  which  we  asceitain 
that  of  other  books.”  He  found  a  pupil  greater  than  himself 
in  the  earnest-minded  and  learned  Sender.2 

Semler  (t  1791)  marks  a  distinct  epoch.  He  was  neither 


1  See  Hengstenberg,  Pentateuch ,  I.  xiii.  It  is  said  that  the  term  “ration¬ 
alism first  occurs  in  the  Theologia  Naturalis  of  Amos  Comen  ms,  1661. 

‘  ‘  Supernaturalism  ”  was  first  used  as  the  antithesis  to  Rationalism  by  Uabler 
(Hcngst.  Theol.  Journ.  1801).  Descartes  in  1650  had  formulated  his  pro¬ 
position,  De  omnibus  dubitandum  est. 

2  Dr.  A.  S.  Farrar  in  his  learned  Bampton  Lectures  (p.  311)  points  out  that 
Leipzig  was  the  chief  home  of  the  dogmatic  school;  Gottingen  of  the  critical  ; 
rPQl)iu<ryn  and  Halle  of  the  Pietist  and  Scholastic. 


Sender. 


403 


W  byhis  Hi  f T j  n°r  ^  °riginat0r  Uke  ScUeiermaoher, 
,1  by  his  1  / 1  books  he  gave  an  impulse  to  exegetic  study 

wh.ch  is  still  far  from  exhausted.  Trained  among  the  Pietisfs 

who  had  taught  him  the  difference  between  theologTlnd 

religion,  he  united  to  marked  liberality  and  independence 

a  sincere  and  pious  orthodoxy.  His  spiritual  experiences 

and  the  vast  reading  which  revealed  to  him  the  divergences 

of  theological  opinions,  had  convinced  him  that  men&musi 

o  on  separate  as  it  were  for  themselves  a  religion  which  meets 

tZ  T  “eeds;  He  ^ed  in  what  has  been  called”  the 
/‘poch  of  subjectivity  ’’-the  epoch  in  which  men  had  con 
vmced  themselves  that  “every  man  must  see  with  his  own 
ejes,  and  examine  with  his  own  judgment,  and  comprehend 
with  his  own  understanding,  all  things  in  the  political  lit 
erary  and  religious  world.”  >  He  regarded  it  as  a  part  of 

.EE  K  “  elements 

f  the  Bible  which  are  temporary  and  Judaic,  and  that  part 

which  is  of  eternal  validity^  The  teaching  of  Emesti  / 

e  study  of  R.  Simon,  of  Spinoza,  and  of  Michaelis  had  led  ^ 

him  to  view  the  Bible  on  its  human,  external,  and  historical 

81  ?  ’  ft0  consider  ln  diversity  rather  than  in  its  unity 
n  its  fragmentary  divisions  and  various  methods  rather  than 

,  “  °lg^nic]  whoIe-  He  examined  the  Canon  as  indepen¬ 
dently  as  Luther  had  done,  and  on  much  the  same  principles 
He  pointed  out  the  distinction  between  Judaisingand  Pauhne 
leo  og,^,  which  is  the  germ  of  the  criticisms  of  the  school 
of  Tubingen.  He  gave  to  exegesis  a  new  direction.  In  the 

Fati  e  l'llC  1  ltS  T‘th°d  had  been  tyPical  i  among  most  of  the 
fathers  allegorical;  in  the  middle  ages  dogmatic;  after  the 

'grr1  tytthei doctrine  °f  Frederic  «><■ 

“Semler  did  all  he  could  to  take  off  t)  i  fet  heaven  in  his  own  way.” 
rios  (Kahnisl,  ,nd  “ uttrod  ,he  rSted  on  the  firat  cento- 

from  the  fetters  of  tradition  ”  (Reussl°  ^ee  AT*  "  y  1  eiJlanc^Pafe(l  theology 
2  “  It  is  inconceivable  how  thoughtful  ChfL^  V-  288. 

ture  of  the  Jews  and  the  Word  of^Ood  which  iq1}^  C0I1^0UI'<1  Hie  sacred  Scrip- 
enveloped  therein.”  Semler,  Abhandl  v  frtsJ?  77 ?  and  there  contained  and 
(4  vols.  1771  1775).  He  also  wrote  a LerCl  hn  nons,  i.  48 

Schnftundd >s  JVortss  Oottcs.  See  many  ms  a^’  f  ”  l"terschled  d-  Veil. 
by  Sonntag  (Be  Doctrina  Inspiration is,  pp1  I6>fl  Wb^n  'TtmgS  ?uoted 
portan,e  of  his  distinction  between  '■  iispfration  hnd”rteveTuon'‘  ^ 

D  D  2 


404  Views  of  Semler. 

Reformation  confessional ;  in  the  Renaissance,  and  recently 
aaain  under  the  influence  of  Ernesti,  it  had  become  pre- 
^  dominantly  grammatical.  Semler  added,  or  greatly  developed, 
f  the  historic  method,  which  lays  predominant  stress  on  tie 
\ circumstances  and  conditions  by  which  the  original  writers 
had  been  surrounded.1  But  he  was  rather  the  child  of  his 
epoch  than  its  leader,  and,  in  his  later  years,  having  laid  hut 
a  bewildered  hand  on  the  sacred  harp,  he 


66 


Back  recoiled,  he  knew  not  why, 

E’en  at  the  sound  himself  had  made. 


The  worst  feature  of  his  system  was  the  extent  to  which  lie 
allowed  the  principle  of  “  accommodation.”  That  there  is 
such  a  thing  as  the  ‘  oeconomy  ’  ( oiKovofila )  or  ‘  condescen¬ 
sion  ’  (<7V7*aTo/8a<m)  of  which  Origen  and  the  Fathers  had 
spoken  is  admitted.  It  is,  in  fact,  a  necessity.8  Anthropo¬ 
morphism  is  itself  a  concession  to  finite  capacities.  Only  by 
some  sort  of  condescension  to  our  infirmities  can  the  Infinite 
he  revealed.  Nor  again  can  it  he  denied  that  something  which 
may  he  called  “  accommodation  ”  is  implied  by  the  progres¬ 
siveness  of  revelation.4  There  were  times  of  ignorance  which 
“  God  winked  at.”  Some  things,  as  our  Lord  said,  had  been 
permitted  by  Moses,  not  because  of  their  intrinsic  desirability 
but  because  of  the  hardness  of  men’s  hearts.5  But  Semler 
cave  to  this  principle  an  abnormal  and  even  a  repulsive 
development.  He  pushed  it  to  an  extent  which  seemed, 
at  least,  to  make  Him  who  is  “  the  Truth  ”  responsible  for  a 
suppression  of  truth  which  is  hardly  distinguishable  from 
a  suggestion  of  falsehood.6  No  such  system  is  consistent 

1  “Le  trait  caractdristique  du  19me  sieele  est  d’avoir  substitud  k  mftbode 
historic ue  a  la  methode  dogmatique,  dans  toutes  les  etudes  relatives  a  1  esprit 
!  l»(.TI!in  Averroes  p.  vi.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  Semler  was  the 

-subject  of  fierce  attacks.  The  Nova  Bibl.  Ecdesiastica  called  him  “  homo  irn 

^"’He  dMTKurfsays,  “brokenhearted,”  at  the  height  of  the  controversy 
raised  by  the  Wolfenbiittel  Fragments.  See  Semler  s  Bamtvortun'J  der 
Fraamente  eines  Ungenannten,  1779. 

»  See  Colet’s  Letters  to  Eadulphus,  p.  28  (ed.  Lupton)  antiouior 

4  It  is  defined  as  “  oecononncum  dicendi^genus.  See  Carus,  Hist,  antiquior 

Sent.  Eccl.  Grace.  de  Accommodations,  1793. 

TV  ok  xx  25.  Matt.  xix.  8. 

6  Each  system  of  interpretation  has  generally  appealed  to  a  favourite  Mum 
proham.  that  of  Semler  was  t  ahroU  rhv  K&yov  acrfoc  pSvraVTO  zkovw. 


Herder. 


405 


with  a  living  Christianity.  If  the  words  even  of  the  Master 
rested  on  illusion  and  compromise,  then 

“  The  solid  firmament  is  rottenness, 

And  earth’s  base  built  on  stubble.”  1 

But  there  could  be  no  permanent  life  in  principles  of 
exegesis  which  were  lacking  in  positive  elements.2  “Men 
thought  too  much  about  the  Jews  and  knew  too  little  of 
Christ.”  3  Their  interpretation  was  “  humilis  et  demissa  ”  to 
an  extent  far  greater  than  that  of  the  School  of  Antioch. 
From  so  dead  an  historical  analysis  the  Church  was  saved  by 
the  genial  influence  of  Herder  (+1803).  “In  Herder  all  the 
blossoms  of  Humanism  ripened;  in  him  the  palms  of  the 
East,,  the  olives  of  Greece,  the  oaks  of  the  North  are  all 
thriving.  In  him  we  find  the  shady  walks  of  philosophy, 
the  great  perspective  of  history,  the  serene  temple-path  of  a 
religion  of  Humanism.”4  Herder  no  less  than  Sender  was 
able  to  see  the  human  side  and  progressive  revelation  of 
Scripture,  but  he  infused  into  the  lifeless  learning  of  his  day 
the  glowing  heat  of  a  poetic  soul.  He  used  the  Scriptures 
to  elevate  his  conception  of  humanity,  not  to  dwarf  his  sense 
of  the  divine.  “  Poetry,  philosophy,  history,  are,”  he 
said,  “  in  my  opinion,  the  three  lights  which  illuminate  the 
peoples,  the  sects,  and  the  generations — a  holy  triangle.”  In 
Scripture,  ‘  he  saw  alike  vivid  poetry,  a  practical  history, 
and  an  eternal  philosophy.”  “  Christianity,”  he  said,  and 
this  is  the  keynote  of  his  system,  “commands  the  purest 
humanity  in  the  purest  way.”  And  thus  he  met  illuminism 


.Mark  iv  33.  It  was  no  less  misapplied  than  the  Kara  tV  i^oyiav  tv, 
ri7e"s.(?°“-  “■  «)  of  the  Reformation  epoch,  and  the  t6  ypd„ua  iloKT.tZ 
(2  Coi.  in  « l  of  the  Fathers  and  Schoolmen,  or  “the  love  of  Christ”  which 
was  used  by  the  Pietists  as  a  plea  for  holy  ignorance. 

H'Mcrl'Zh  a- rmei  779  °m1 0ftSemV’  S  ten^!,n?ies  m< >v  be  seen  in  Teller’s 

morals.  ^  *’T'  17'2’  whlch  rednces  Christianity  to  commonplace 

„  "  th.e,i“P.ort“t  influence  of  Semler,  see  his  own  autobiography  (1781)  • 
H.  Schmid,  Die  Theologie  Semlers,  1858  ;  Tholuck,  Verm  Sckriflel  ii  39 '■ 

J-  £  &«*"( Rigae  1792),  and  the  ioticea  of  Su  borner ’ 
Diestel,  Meyer,  Kahms,  Hagenbach,  &c.  uer 

3  Keuss,  Beil.  Schrift,  ii.  323. 

an’l  iv.rhniS;  Gm""  Pr0,tes‘?nlism’  ?■  T-  P  70.  “More  poet  than  theologian, 
and  for  that  reason  only  the  more  lovely.”  Reuss,  §  578. 


406 


Services  of  Herder. 

with  its  own  weapons.  Christ  in  his  view  was  clivinest 
in  His  divine  humanity,  and  under  His  own  chosen  title 
as  the  Son  of  God  who  called  Himself  “  the  Son  of  Man. 

At  the  very  time  when  men  like  Nicolai  and  Bahrdt  were 
sneering  at  the  Bible  as  “  an  obsolete,  incomprehensible 
book,  an  arsenal  of  old  prejudices,”  Herder,  whom  the  most 
illuminated  among  them  could  not  venture  to  depreciate, 
was  labouring,  as  Luther  did,  to  place  it  as  the  candle 
in  the  centre  of  the  sanctuary.1 2  While  they  were  attempt¬ 
ing  to  put  Homer  and  Plato  on  a  level  with  Isaiah  and 
St!  John,  Herder,  who  valued  the  great  Greek  writers  as 
highly  and  knew  them  better,  said  that  in  comparison  with 
the  prophets  and  poets  of  the  Old  Testament  the  greatest  of 
them  were  hut  as  a  drop  to  the  ocean.3  “  The  Bible,  so  he 
wrote  in  his  letters  on  the  study  of  theology,  “  must  be  lead 
in  a  human  manner,  for  it  is  a  book  written  by  men  for  men. 
The  best  reading  of  this  divine  book  is  human.  The  more 
humanly  we  read  the  Word  of  God,  the  nearer  we  come  to 
the  design  of  its  Author,  who  created  man  in  His  image,  and 
acts  humanly  in  all  the  deeds  and  meicies,  wheiein  He 
manifests  Himself  as  our  God.”  Thus  he  rescued  the 
Bible  from  the  hands  which  only  tore  and  tangled  the  rich 
threads  of  its  poetry  and  life.  He  dealt  but  little  with 
“  the  theological  metaphysics  which  neither  teach  how  to 
live  or  die,  but  only  how  to  quarrel  scientifically.”  He 
always  tried  to  find  the  Revelation  of  God  centied  in  the  pei- 
son  of  Christ,  and  not  in  minute  and  unscriptural  formulae 
concerning  Him.  Large  tolerance,  a  loving  spirit,  gladness  of 
heart,  sympathy  with  the  East,  literary  insight,  noble  and 
melodious  language,  the  ideal  colouring  which  he  shed  over 
all  that  he  taught — these  were  Herder  s  special  gifts.  They 
helped  him  in  counteracting  the  utilitarianism  of  pulpit 
teaching,  the  conceit  of  French  infidelity,  and  the  incapacity 
of  the  prevailing  criticism.  He  left  upon  the  Church  the 


1  Herder,  Vom  Erliiser  d.  Menschen,  1796  ;  Von  Gottos  Sohn,  1/97. 

2  Hagenbach,  Germ.  Rationalism,  p.  191.^ 

3  Zur  Schonen  Literatur  und  Kunst ,  p.  67  (1769). 


A  ant. 


407 


impress  which  she  then  most  needed.*  Perhaps  no  small 

P,  ,  °  1S  depth  and  sPlrituality  were  due  to  his  lovino- 
study  of  the  Gospel  of  St.  John.  “It  is,”  he  said,  “a  still 
c  eep  sea  m  which  the  heavens  with  the  sun  and  stars  are 

rr4,  #  i,”re - *'“■  th.  h„,»„ 

St' 1  John”  l  ar6,)  th6y  afe  t0  b6  f°Und  “  the  GosPel  of 

But  it  seems  3  as  if  all  human  services  must  inevitably  be 
imperfect  and  liable  to  abuse.  The  magical  garden  of  Herder 
was  but  a  labyrinth.  His  romanticism  had  fulfilled  a  necessary 
unction,  but  sterner  elements  were  required  for  the  regenera- 
tion  of  theology.  The  opinions  of  the  age  had  been  sent 
drifting  upon  the  open  sea  of  doubt,  and  men  were  still 
searching  for  some  anchor  of  the  soul,  by  which  they 
could  moor  m  a  safe  harbour  the  faith  which  had  lone- 
been  rolling  like  a  dismantled  hulk  on  stormy  and  turbid 

For  a  time  it  seemed  as  if  rest  was  to  be  found  in  the  new 
attempt  of  K  ant  (+1804)  to  form  a  union  between  philosophy 
an  re  lgion.  But  so  far  as  religion  is  concerned  the 
sole  service  of  Kant  was  to  establish  against  utilitarian 
moials  the  awful  supremacy  of  conscience.  With  in- 
comparable  distinctness,  he,  “like  a  philosophic  Moses, 
proclaimed  once  more  the  supernatural  majesty  of  the  moral 
aw.  •>  Had  this  been  all  it  would  have  been  well;  but  Kant’s 
system,  in  vindicating  against  Lutheranism  the  grandeur  of 
human  freedom,  unhappily  denied  the  necessity  of  divine 


r/-  The  best  exegetical  works  collected  in  Herder’s  twelve  volume*  «f  rw 

- f  n  13  weie  Urkunde  des  Menschengeschlechts,  1774  ;  Lieder  der  Liebe 

1/8;  Moran  Atha,  1779;  Vom  Geiste  d.  Hebr.  Poesie  1782 Brlfl  s' 
Studium  d.  Thcologie  betreffend  1780  ’  ’  ^  l/fe 

pP'?5  singularly  glowing  estimate  of  Liicke,  OrZdrts, 

3  Kahnis,  p.  78. 

«  V.tsxwssw: 

p.  87DOTkrntfjy8temeGodfarrfv»S  byThTk^/d  Dod™- 

and  immortality  of  the  soul  are  postulates  of  the  idea  ofdift’y  reed°“ 


408 


Idealism. 


G-race.  Religion  became  as  it  were  but  an  adjunct  to  morals , 
and  since  it  was  branded  as  venality  to  do  what  is  right  for  God  s 
sake,  God  became  little  more  than  “  a  stream  of  tendency,” 
and  Christ  not  an  historic  Person,  but  that  “  divine  idea  of 
man  which  expiates  our  sinful  mortality.  It  is  true  that, 
recognising  the  enslavement  of  tbe  Practical  Reason  by 
an  enigmatic  selfishness,  Kant  postulates  the  necessity  for 
an  ideal  Church,  which  presupposes  an  ideal  Founder.1 
But  the  supernaturalism  for  which  Kant,  as  it  were  by 
an  afterthought,  found  room  in  his  system,  was  obviously 
superfluous  if  it  offered  to  the  reason  nothing  more  than  its 
own  contents.  We  cannot  therefore  be  surprised  that  in  the 
Idealism  to  which.  Kant  paved  the  way  from  the  older 
Rationalism,  God  became  as  distant  from  man  as  the  Stoic 
“Providence.”  To  exegesis  he  only  contributed  the  ration¬ 
alising  suggestion  that  it,  or  its  application,  should  be  purely 
allegorical  and  moral ; 2  and  since  he  too,  like  Semler,  had 
allowed  the  free  use  of  “  accommodation,”  Paulus  applied  his 
system  in  a  truly  ludicrous  explanation  of  the  New  Testament 
miracles.  In  this  system,  as  Dorner  says,  “the  miraculous 
power  is  transferred  to  the  exegete,  who  does  not  indeed 
make  something  out  of  nothing,  but  who  manages  to  change 
something  into  nothing,  and  then  gives  out  this  nothing  as 
something,  throwing  away  the  kernel  of  the  history  in  order 
only  to  retain  the  shell.”  Under  the  impulse  which  Kant 
had  given,  Christianity  was  replaced  by  vague  religionism, 
which  gave  way  to  bare  morality,  which  in  its  turn  was 
replaced  once  more  by  the  very  eudaemonism  which  Kant 
most  disliked.3 

1  The  language  of  Kant,  as  of  many  of  even  the  most  advanced  sceptics, 
Tvas  profoundly  reverential  towards  Christ.  He  rebuked  Borowski  for  mention¬ 
ing  his  name  in  any  nearness  to  that  of  Christ.  “  Namen  davon  der  eine 
geheiligt,  der  andere  aber  eines  armen  Ihn  nach  Vermogen  auslegenden 

Stumper’s  ist.”  WerJce,  x i.  131.  .  . 

2  Here  we  have  once  more  an  illustration  of  the  fact  that  Allegory  is  in 

reality  the  offspring  of  Rationalism. 

8  Dorner,  ii.  328.  Among  theologians  'Wegseheider  specially  represents  the 
views  of  Kant.  “The  Kantian  rationalism  pretended  to  commemorate  the 
mysteries  of  Christianity  from  behind  the  veil  of  its  terminology  in  a  clearer  and 
glorified  light.”  Chalybaus,  Lect.  17. 


Fichte. 


409 


It  is  not  here  necessary  to  dwell  on  the  successors  of 
Kant.  Ivant  had  recognised  the  objective  reality  of  the 
“  thing  m  itself.”  Fichte  tried  to  get  rid  of  this  Kantian 
dualism,  by  treating  the  Non-Ego  as  a  mere  postulate  of 
go ,  by  making  the  Ego  to  be  everything,  even  God  • 
or  by  saying  that  the  Ego  has  no  existence  at  all,  and 
that  there  is  nothing  but  God  a  God,  however,  who,  as 
tar  as  Fichte’s  philosophy  was  concerned,  was  without  person¬ 
ality  and  without  self-consciousness.  If  Kant’s  categorical 
imperative  could  bear  no  living  fruits,  neither  could  this 
resolution  of  everything  into  self  or  into  the  absolute. 
Jacobi,  among  his  constant  oscillations,  at  least  saw  dis¬ 
tinctly  that  we  cannot  pray  to  a  God  which  we  simply  pos¬ 
sess  as  the  Ego,  or  even  to  a  God  who  is  “  the  moral  order 
of  the  world,”  but  to  a  God  who  can  say  to  us,  “  I  am  that  I 
am  The  system  of  Fichte  might  serve  for  an  unanswerable 
philosophy,  it  is  useless  for  every  purpose  of  personal  relio-ion. 

bat  could  only  be  derived,  as  it  was  by  Fichte  himself,  from 
far  different  sources.2  Philosophy  had  served  no  other  re\ 
lgious  purpose  than  to  help  Protestantism  to  shake  off  the  | 

tyranny  of  narrow  dogmas.  It  could  offer  nothing  substantial / 
in  their  place.  / 

The  more  constructive  movement  of  the  new  epoch  beo-an 
w,th  Schleiermacher  (+1834),  the  Origen  of  Germany  who 
exercised  a  profound  influence  alike  on  religion  and  on 
biblical  interpretation.  He  is  the  founder  of  what  may  beg* 
called  the  psychological  school  of  exegesis.  Like  Lessing  I 
Semler,  and  Herder,  he  was  a  man  of  deep  piety,  but  he  had  / 
a  clearer  insight  and  a  profounder  faith  than  any  of  the 


,  1  according  to  Fichte,  has  no  reality  without  us  hut  is  urn 

aCtjVlt}i  and  unconscious  intuition  of  the  Ego;  and  this  creative 
Ego  is  not  the  individual  but  the  absolute  Ego. 

our  f  d?h°  ” 18  bey?,n,i  the  reach  of  our  science,  but  not  beyond 

hi  tonV  1  1  -U  +te’  SUt€']lllh™\  Claudius  compared  an  ideal  religion  without 
historical  basis  to  a  painted  horse,  which  you  can  admire  b?t  not  ride 
Hagenbach,  Germ.  Rat.  p.  296.  uuc  I10t  nae- 

J  Jfchts-  SrfnlaUm  TheologU,  1846.  It  is  ,  characteristic  fact  that  both 

join  imtortance  of  the  Gospei  of  st- 


410 


SchleiertnacJier. 


! tree 4  He  saw  as  distinctly  as  they  the  difference  between 
fieri  on  and  dogma,  between  the  Church  and  the  school  of 
leology,  between  the  Scriptures  as  a  whole  and  the  collec- 
ons  of  “proof-texts”  which  had  been  drawn  from  them, 
ut,  because  Piety  had  been,  as  he  says,  the  womb  in  whose 
sly  darkness  his  young  life  was  nourished,1 2  he  also  saw,  as 
x  they  had  not  done,  the  power  and  the  function  of  Faith,  and 
the  need  for  the  redemptive  work  of  Christ.  It  was  through 
j  this  apprehension  of  Christ  that  he  was  able  to  under¬ 
stand  the  New  Testament,3  and  while  rising  above  sectarian 
bigotry  to  feel  the  necessity  for  something  beyond  the 
philosophical  probabilities  of  Leibnitz,  the  historical  in¬ 
quiries  of  Semler,  and  the  poetic  sympathies  of  Herder. 
His  Monologues,  published  in  1800,  were  the  fitting  com¬ 
mencement  of  an  influence  which  was  to  affect  so  power¬ 
fully  the  new  century.4  His  main  work  was  to  vindicate  for 
Christianity  its  place  in  the  emotions,  and  not  to  treat 
it  either  as  a  series  of  dogmas,  a  philosophical  problem,  or  a 
system  of  morals.  The  Rationalists  called  him  a  mystic 
"^because  he  was  a  sincere  believer ;  the  orthodox  called 
him  a  Rationalist  because  he  claimed  the  right  to  the  free 
criticism  which  since  the  days  of  Luther  had  scarcely  dared 
to  breathe  or  whisper.  He  belonged  to  neither  party ;  he 
was  greater  than  them  both.  Uniting  the  deepest  prin¬ 
ciples  of  Syncretism  and  Pietism,  he  vTas  the  Luther,  the 
Calixt,  the  Spener,  and  the  Semler  of  a  new  and  philosophic 
theology  based  on  religious  consciousness.  “  Speculation  and 

1  “Xot  even  Herder,”  says  Strauss,  “so  distinctly  and  emphatically 
asserted  the  divinity  of  Christas  he  did.”  New  Life  of  Jesus,  introd.  §  5. 
He  gave  a  greater  impulse  to  exegesis  than  any  one  since  Calvin. 

2  As  a  boy  of  fifteen  he  had  been  sent  to  the  Moravian  school  of  Niesky, 
and  he  afterwards  entered  the  Moravian  College  at  Barby.  He  went  to  Halle 
at  the  age  of  nineteen  in  1787. 

3  He  contiibuted  little  or  nothing  to  the  understanding  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment.  He  wished  to  unite  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Churches,  and  said, 
“Christ  is  the  quickening  centre  of  the  Church;  from  Him  all  comes,  to 
Him  all  returns.  ”  In  his  last  moments  he  celebrated  the  Holy  Communion 
with  his  family,  and  solemnly  expressed  his  faith  in  Christ  his  Saviour,  and  in 
the  atoning  merits  of  His  death. 

4  They  were  the  moral  completion  of  the  Reden  iiber  die  Religion ,  published 
in  1799,  which  were  addressed  rather  to  the  bigoted  than  to  the  indifferent. 


His  School. 


411 


ho  tii  t  V  t  Hr  ’  “are  °ften  regardej  as  be“g 

ostile  to  each  other ;  but  it  was  peculiar  to  this  man  that  he 
mited  both  most  intimately,  without  doing  injustice  to  the 

othe  °“  Th  Ptb  °f  the  °ne'  M  t0  the  sitnPlicity  the 
the  fn  7  consequence  was  that  if  he  did  not  become 

founder  of  a  school,  lie  yet  inspired  many  who  were 

m°rtehe0rfi  H  S  f°U0WCrS-  M°St  °f  th0Se  foUowers  worked 

1“  ®  ri' eXegeS1S-  Am0nZ  tbem  we  “ay  number 

i  ei y  liferent  schools  :  men  of  strict  orthodoxy  like 

Twesten,  Mitzsch,  and  J.  Muller;  men  with  a  leaninc,  to 

rationalism  like  De  Wettej  llleek,  and  Gieseler;  men  who 

occup.ed  an  intermediate  position  like  Olshausen,  Tholuck, 

R  ehm,  TV  eiss,  Hagenbach,  Uhllorn,  Liicke,  Meander,  Umbreit 

“ann’  Do™er-  aa<l  other  writers,  at  whose  feet  the 
theologians  of  England,  though  they  too  have  done  a 

great  and  lasting  work,  have  been  content  for  manv  years  to 
sit  and  learn.  The  first  work  of  the  ablest  prelate  of  modern 
days,  the  late  Bishop  Thirlwall  of  St.  David’s,  was  a  trans- 
iation  of  bchleiermacher’s  Introduction  to  St.  Luke. 

But  in  spite  of  Schleiermaclier’s  powerful  and,  on  the 
whole,  healthy  influence  the  conflict  was  by  no  means  over 
its  most  acute  crisis  was  yet  to  come.  Hegel  was  born  in 
ImO,  two  years  later  than  Schleiermacher.  In  his  system 
ie  world  has  probably  seen  the  last  attempt  to  make' 
religion  a  phase  of  philosophy.  Schleiermacher  had  en- 
<*»taared_to  establish  a  conviction  oTtliFTruTlrTrTuTiTc- 
tiamty  hy  finding-  it  psycliologiVnlly  jn  its  adaptation  to 
hu^-^eed^and  its  wtiafectinn  nf  Imman^rations, 

L  «■  D f,  ’ad  asCrlbed  tbe  P°wer  to  grasp  the  ideal  of  God 
o  intellectual  intuition;”  Jacobi  to  a  mixture  of  feelino 
and  intuition.  Hegel  once  more  revived  the  tendency  to 
ideology,  and  treated  religious  dogma  as  the  explanation  of 

fluenced  De  WeitfbJt  »- 

thh-  pnorf  Erks  <ui% 

sssHasasss 


412 


Hegel. 

a  priori  principles.1  Thus  Hegel  s  Trinity,  which,  consists 
of  an  unconditioned  subtraction,  a  conditioned  reality,  and 
the  identity  of  the  two— is  indefinitely  far  removed  from  that 
of  Athanasius,  and  still  farther  from  that  of  Scripture.  HegeH 
Christ  is  neither  the  Christ  of  scholastic  dogma,  nor  Kant’s 
Ideal  of  Humanity,  nor  the  historic  Christ  of  Schleiermacher, 
nor  the  Redeeming  Saviour  of  Spener  and  Tranche,  but  only 
a  speculative  ChrisUU***^^ 

and  thy  bnowinp’.  The  Holy  Spirit  of  Hegel  is  not  The  Holy 
Ghostthe  Comforter,  but  “that  which  brings  the  Father  and 
the  Son  in  the  essence  of  God  to  a  unity  of  consciousness.”  2 
The  knowledge  of  such  a  Trinity  is  not  life,  but  a  mere 
logical  notion,  a  mere  etherealised  shadow  of  aibitiary 

thought.3 

It  is  not  for  us  to  ask  how  far  Hegel  was  in  earnest  with 
this  strange  orthodoxy,  or  how  far  his  orthodoxy  was  mere 
self-delusion,  and  that  of  his  followers  the  mistaking  of  words 
for  realities.4  Rut  though  some  of  them  certainly,  like 
Daub  and  Marheinecke  (f  1846),  were  perfectly  sincere,  the 
natural  results  of  his  system  appeared  very  rapidly,  on  the 
one  hand,  in  Strauss,  Bruno  Bauer,  and  Feuerbach,  on  the 


1  “Like  the  ancient  Gnosticism,  the  Hegelian  philosophy  believed .  in  dog¬ 
matic  Christianity,  because  it  descended  from  an  a  priori  principle,  m  which 
it  found  the  explanation  of  it”  (Dr.  A.  S.  Farrar,  Free  Thought ,  p.  3/J). 
“  Der  Grundgedanke  seiner  Philosophie  ist  daher  ;  das  Absolute  ist  1  I’ocess, 
ist  die  Selbstentwickelung  der  Substanz  zum  Subject  ”  (Schwarz,  p.  15).  .  ^  lhe 
existence  of  a  personal  God  is  admitted  neither  within  nor  without  the  l  nrv  erse, 
but  is  reduced  simply  to  the  knowledge  of  the  human  being.  .  lne  hope  o 
conscious  immortality  is  scoffed  at  as  a  sensuously  selfish  illusion ;  ami  tne 
antagonism  of  good  and  evil  is  suppressed,  evil  being  regarded  as  necessary, 
and  good  as  only  relative,  while  both  may  relapse  into  each  other  (Uialybaus, 

2  “  The  Universality  can  be  regarded  as  the  absolute  essence  (the  Father) 
which  by  the  world’s  reality  (the  Son,  as  the  momentum  of  particularity) 
mediates  itself  into  the  identity  (the  Holy  Ghost),”  Chalybaus,  Lect.  16. 

3  The  influence  of  Hegel  is  clearly  seen  in  Wilhelm  Yatke,  who  applied 
Hegel’s  method  to  Old  Testament  criticism.  See  Dr.  Geldardt,  m  Mod. 


Review,  1884.  .  ,  ,  Co0 

4  Hegel’s  Religionsphilosophie  was  only  published  after  his  deatn,  m  loo  . 
Of  the  Christliche  Glaubenslelire  of  Strauss,  it  has  been  said  that  ‘  it  resemb  es 
a  theology  in  the  same  way  that  a  cemetery  resembles  a  city.  A  letter  in 
the  life  of  Yatke  (September,  1828)  gives  a  curious  picture  of  the  _  theological 
currents  in  Berlin  when  Schleiermacher,  Neander,  and  Marheinecke  uere 
Professors. 


Strauss. 


413 


Tiibwin  1Ferdinand  Christian  Baur-  the  school  of 

Hegel  had  not  been  four  years  in  his  grave  before  the 
appearance,  m  1835,  of  a  book  by  one  who  had  been 

,,PUpi,’  "  P10duced  in  theology  the  sensation  of  an 
earthquake.  That  book  was  Strauss’s  Life  of  Jesus  It 
illustrated  the  danger  which  Claus  Harms  had  prophesied 
in  his  theses  of  1817,  that  “Lutheranism  would  be  pro¬ 
gressively  reformed  back  into  heathenism.”  It  did  not 
so  much  make  an  epoch  as  cause  a  crisis ;  it  did  not  so 
much  constitute  a  beginning  as  a  dose  *  It  was  the  redudio 
.  hornbile  of  current  scepticism.  Kant  had  seen  in  the 
existence  of  the  Church  a  proof  of  the  existence  of  its  Founder 
.  rauss  inverted  the  relation,  and  saw  in  the  idea  of  Christ 
an  invention  of  the  already  existing  Church.  The  ability  of 
the  book,  its  clearness,  its  mastery  of  the  critical  studies 

.  hlch  Hegf  had  despised,  its  union  of  Hegelian  construc- 
neness  with  ruthless  criticism,  its  adoption  of  the  historic 
method  winch  was  peculiarly  suited  to  the  tendencies  of  /M 
the  century,  all  increased  the  shock  which  the  Leben  JesuS'  ^ 
caused  in  the  minds  of  Christians.*  The  theory  of  the  E^k 
v  as  as  original  as  it  was  audacious.  There  was  little  or  no 
attempt  at  flimsy  and  fantastic  ideology.  With  great  acute¬ 
ness  Strauss  marshalled  and  magnified  the  difficulties 
and  discrepancies  which,  though  they  are  innocuous  to 
an}  reasonable  view  of  truthful  testimony,  fell  with  fatal 
force  on  the  hollowjdfll^fjl^  jk^r-which 

Kid  so  long  been  enthroned  on  the  pedestal  of  a  false 
orthodoxy.  And  when,  on  these  grounds,  he  had  denied  the  T  / 
genumeness  and  credibility  of  the  Gospels,  he  proceeded  V 
to  account  for  their  existence  by  the  theory  of  myths;  in  / 

gy  ■*») . 

Stiuks.,,,  Anstoss  “8-  saben  ihm  den 

by  M  JEvSTmg.  m‘°  F'ench  b>'  Uttr*-  lf39  !  <»to  English  anonymously 


414 


Baur. 


other  words,  he  treated  the  facts  narrated  in  the  Gospels  as 
stories  evolved  out  of  the  idea.  Foi^hjosi^ 
mankind  in  general  as  the  only  incarnation  _of  God,  and  in 
h is^Wbseqn en t-^wtTiic.  Idle  CrT "aubendeh^e^ he  declared  the 
absolute  irreconcilability  of  Christianity  with  modern  cul¬ 
ture.1  Strauss  was  rapidly  followed  by  men  who  showed 
whither  his  teaching  led.  Bruno  Bauer  spoke  of  the  Gospels 
with  ridicule,  and  declared  them  to  be  due  to  conscious 
fiction ;  -Ff.n pi^ach^  argued  that  it  is  man  only  who 
exists  and  not  God,  and  that  every  positive  religion  is  due 
to  nothing  but  the  self-delusion  of  mankind. 

At  such  an  epoch  the  hearts  of  many  began  to  fail  them 
for  fear,  and  still  more  when  Ferdinard  Baur  endeavoured 
(to  use  his  own  language)  to  take  by  regular  siege  the 
fortress  which  Strauss  had  thought  to  surprise  by  storm. 
Baur  was  a  man  deserving  of  all  respect.  His  intellect  was 
keen,  his  learning  immense,  his  industry  inexhaustible,  his 
heart  sincere.  In  his  powerful  answer  to  Mohler’s  Symbolik 
he  had  already  proved  himself  to  be  a  great  theologian,  and 
the  cause  of  Christian  Apologetics  seemed  to  be  seriously 
imperilled  when  he  attacked  the  genuineness  of  the  greater 
part  of  the  New  Testament.  Supplementing  Strauss’s  view 
of  the  Gospel  history  by  a  close  criticism  of  the  Gospels 
themselves,  he  endeavoured  to  undermine  their  authority 
by  emphasising  into  contradictoriness  the  different  points  of 
view  in  the  Synoptists  and  St.  John. 

But  true  Christianity  has  nothing  to  fear  at  any  time. 
The  strength  and  consummate  equipment  of  these  attacks 
has  but  rendered  more  evident  the  impregnability  of  the 
sacred  citadel.  NEANDER  showed  the  calmness  of  his  own 
courageous  convictions  when  he  withstood  the  proposal  of 
the  Prussian  Government  to  prohibit  the  introduction  into 
Prussia  of  Strauss’s  books.  The  Leben  Jesu ,  which  seemed 
likely  to  be  so  fatal,  was  but  one  more  of  the  many  waves 
which  have  dashed  themselves  in  vain  upon  the  rock,  and 

1  Strauss  wrote  to  Vatke  :  “  Sc-hleiermacher  has  stirred  me  deeply  .  .  . 
but  he  does  not  say  the  last  word.  This  word  I  will  utter.” 


Neander. 


415 


been  scattered  into  mist  upon  the  wind  and  scum  upon 
the  shore  It  called  forth  a  multitude  of  answers  equal 
to  it  in  ability  and  learning,  infinitely  superior  to  it  in 
power  and  depth.  It  was  Neander,  more  than  any  man 
i  eandor,  that  “  saint  of  Protestantism,”  that  last  of 
the  Fathers  of  the  Church,  as  he  has  been  affectionately 
called,— Neander,  with  his  fanaticism  of  mildness  and  in- 
olerance  of  intolerance,  who  stemmed  the  rising  tide  of 
infidelity.  His  motto  was  pectus  facit  theologum,  and  many 
sneered  at  Ins  followers  as  pectoralists,  but  he  relied  on  deep 
learning  quite  as  much  as  on  pious  emotion.  Those  who 
lave  read  such  lives  of  Christ  as  were  written  in  answer  to 
•Strauss  by  Neander,  Ullmann,  Tholuck,  Lange,  Ewald,  Rio-o-en- 
lach,  and  many  others— those  who  have  since  studied  the  pro¬ 
found  and  powerful  works  of  Weiss  and  Keim— will  see,  even 

amid  some  concessions  which  they  may  regret,  how  jejune  and 
ransitory  was  the  work  of  Strauss.  The  feelings  with  which 
it  was  read  even  by  Christians  of  moderate  erudition  were 
well  expressed  by  the  earnest  and  eloquent  Lacordaire 
Studying  the  book  paragraph  by  paragraph,  and  then  opening 
he  Gospels  to  read  the  texts  which  had  been  criticise! 
he  says  that,  m  spite  of  a  sort  of  involuntary  terror  inspired 
by  the  writer’s  erudition,  “  it  never  needed  more  than  ten 
minutes  to  dissipate  the  charm  of  a  vain  science,  and  to 

enable  me  to  smile  inwardly  at  the  impotence  to  -which  God 
has  condemned  error.”  1 

As  Strauss  had  laughed  out  of  the  field  the  naturalism  of 
aulus,  so  it  was  Baur  who  showed  the  radical  weakness  of 
the  mythical  theory  of  Strauss.  Neither  he,  nor  the  able 
writers  who  followed  him,  could  fall  into  the  extreme  folly  of 
denying  the  historical  existence  of  Jesus,  or  the  fact  that  the 
faith  m  Him  sprang  from  His  own  transcendent  personality. 
Even  the  ingenuity  of  Baur  could  not  put  the  date  of  the 
Gospels  low  enough  to  allow  for  the  evolution  of  myths,  nor 
could  his  candour  deny  the  certain  genuineness  of  at  least  the 

Conferences  (1846),  p.  155. 


i 


416 


Failure  of  Strauss. 

Apocalypse  and  the  four  greatest  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.1 2  Many 
of  his  arguments  for  the  spuriousness  of  the  New  Testament 
were  strangely  futile,  and  his  own  school  has  had  to  admit  the 
genuineness  of  books  which  he  declared  to  be  apocryphal. 
Put  meanwhile  if  the  main  results  of  his  criticism  had 
been  successful,  enough  would  have  remained  even  in  the 
Apocalypse  and  the  four  Epistles  to  prove  the  truth  of  the 
historic  Gospel.  Baur,  in  fact,  rendered  a  threefold  service. 
The  germ  of  his  tendency-theory,  founded  on  an  hostility 
between  the  Judaic  and  Pauline  elements  in  the  Church, 
was  true  and  full  of  suggestiveness,  though  his  developments 
of  this  view  were  utterly  extravagant.  His  criticisms  led  to 
a  yet  closer  and  more  thorough  examination  of  the  Canon, 
which  has  tended  to  establish  every  book  of  it,  with  very  few 
exceptions,  on  an  even  more  certain  basis  than  beiore.^  And 
meanwhile  he  had  shown,  not  to  the  world  only,  but  even  to 
Strauss  himself,  that  the  book  which  was  to  have  convulsed 
Christianity  to  its  foundations  was  but  an  idle  dream.  In  subse¬ 
quent  editions  Strauss  undid  his  own  work  by  making  an  un¬ 
availing  attempt  to  remodel  his  theory  on  the  views  of  Baur 
and  Feuerbach,3  allotting  more  space  to  conscious  and  inten¬ 
tional  fiction.  The  argument  failed  as  egregiously  as  before. 
The  inherent  simplicity  and  truthfulness  of  the  Gospels 
defeats  every  attempt  to  brand  them  with  intentional 
imposture.  Twenty-five  years  after  the  Leben  Jesu  had 
been  published,  its  author,  with  ill-concealed  chagrin, 
alluded  to  the  fact  that  it  was  already  beginning  to  be 
forgotten  and  overlooked. 

And  in  many  other  ways  God  brought  good  out  of  evil, 
and  mercifully  vindicated  His  truth  to  man.  These  attempts 
to  represent  the  Saviour  of  the  W orid  as  one  who  could  stoop 

1  Such  discoveries  as  the  lost  “  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles  anti  the 
inscription  on  the  tomb  of  Abercius,  Bishop  of  Hieropolis,  found  last  year 
by  Mr.  Ramsay  in  Phrygia,  are  alone  sufficient — apart  from  the  certain  date 
of  some  of  the  canonical  writings — to  shake  to  the  dust  the  whole  m)thic 

theory  which  once  seemed  to  loom  so  large. 

2  Baur  has  been  followed  by  Schwegler,  Hilgenfeld,  Zeller,  v  olkmai,  Ac., 
and  opposed  by  Thiersch,  Dorner,  Ewald,  Bleek,  &c. 

3  Leben  Jesu  fur  das  Deutsche  Folk  bearbeitet ,  p.  158  (1864). 


Orthodox  Reaction.  417 

to  deceit  horrified  the  feelino-s  of  nil  Pi,  •  *  , 

far  from  convincing  they  repelled.  The  work  of  Strauss  had  no 

efiect  very  different  from  that  which  be  had  intended  It 

was  the  dissolution  not  of  Christianity,  but  of  the  preten 

I™8  PMos°Phy  ^ich  had  posed  at  Lt  as  its  proEr" 

the°aVr  T.  lmpu  se  t0  tlle  concentration,  the  revival  even 
the  enlightenment  of  Christian  life.  It  is  true  th  ’+  rv 

orthodox  reaction  evoked  by  his  Life  nf  T  ,  •  **  *  the 

JproteiSmandaided  V  majwitieS  and  denundatioiTty 

levival  would  have  been  doomed  to  swfft  and  more  over 
whel  nnng  catastrophe.*  But  the  deadly  attack  of 

fn  rLTahhier  ^ 

Christian  life.  The  pulpits 

rusty  armour  of  scholastic  orthodoxy  was  useless  aLin 
he  cannon  of  modern  warfare.  The  laity  beo-an  to  re 
member  that  they  too,  no  less  than  the  clergy  were  t 
spiritual  priesthood  called  to  the  duty  of  good  works 

M“°”  be“~  ”»« »<i  -  L j. 

1  See  Kahnis,  p.  249. 

“confessional  orthodoxy8’’6 vm  fh°l't'Iived  sollool  of  reaction  into 

divine  revelation  on  Se  weakness  of  ^ 

snarling  party-newspaper  style  of  controverev  andthT  m,k’  •8n<?  aIso  to  the 
on  wkclr  it  relied,  Hengstenbcrg  was  the  Calov  *5' ;  ecclesiastical  terrorism 
and  the  Evcingelische  Kir  chcnzei torn,,  VT  .  t1he  mneteenth  century 

1848)  occupied  the  saSe  tSppy^osS  ST"?  °f  ,itsy “fluence  (mt 
ago.  But  no  heresy-hunting  .o'  rJ  iS,  E^ord  did  twenty  years 

logical  haired  against  unpopSar  namefcouldTehf’t  “  ^ 

Sion  animated  by  unscrupulous  and  bitter  animosities  |!  Sch°°  of  retrogres- 
the  strange  new  orthodoxy  of  an  Evangelical  U  i  mas  soon  seen  that 
evil  means  that  supposed  good  mivht  mm  >  I  yola  ?r  h°rquemada,  using 
Schwarz,  pp.  58-92,  Kmf  p.  299)  SoMZ^^  “^mmsm  (see 
commentary  on  the  Canticles,  that  filinsen 

E  E 


418  Enlarged  Views. 

more  thorough  and  religious.  Above  all  faith  was  deepened, 
and  was  restored  to  its  due  supremacy  in  the  economy  of  the 
Christian  life.  The  whole  Christian  world  had  learnt  to  see 
that  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  there  are  many  unsolved  diffi¬ 
culties,  many  unreconciled  antinomies.  They  saw  that  the 
soul  could  not  be  sustained  in  its  convictions  exclusively  by 
the  biblical  super  naturalism  which  had  not  come  unscathed 
out  of  the  assaults  of  so  many  writers  from  Spinoza  down  to 
Baur.  They  saw  that  questions  like  the  genuineness  of 
this  or  that  particular  book,  could  never  alone  become  so 
certain  that  upon  them  could  he  built  the  majestic  super¬ 
structure  of  a  Christian’s  faith.  They  realised  that  there 
was  something  both  radically  unscriptural  and  profoundly 
irreverent  in  questions  as  to  whether  a  book  was  written  by  a 
man  or  by  “  the  pen  of  the  Triune  God."  They  remembered 
that  the  spiritual  life  of  many  a  hero  and  patriarch  had  been 
sustained  and  inspired  by  a  Word  of  God  which  was  not  the 
written  word,  but  of  Whom  the  written  word  is  to  us  a 
revelation ;  and  that  the  earliest  Christians,  who  had  been 
Christians  indeed,  were  heirs  of  the  new  covenant,  though 
not  a  line  of  the  New  Testament  had  yet  been  penned. 
They  returned,  says  the  ablest  and  deepest  historian  of  this 
epoch  to  “  the  power  and  certainty  of  the  material  principle 
of  the  Faith— whence  critical  operations  may  be  contemplated 
with  serenity,  nay,  actively  shared  in  without  anxiety.  1 
On  a  Faith  thus  strengthened— on  a  Faith  which  had 
attained  to  a  deeper  certainty  than  historical  criticism  could 
either  bestow  or  shake— all  subsequent  storms  fell  m  vain. 
“  We  older  men,"  says  Meyer,  in  the  Preface  to  his  fourth 
edition  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Bomans,  “  have  seen  the  day 
when  Hr.  Paulus  and  his  devices  were  in  vogue ;  he  died 
without  leaving  a  disciple  behind  him.  We  passed  through 
the  tempest  raised  by  Strauss,  and  with  what  a  sense  of 
solitariness  might  its  author  now  celebrate  his  jubilee  !  We 
saw  the  constellation  of  Tubingen  arise,  and  even  before 
Baur  departed  its  lustre  had  waned.  A  firmer  basis  and 


1 


on*7 


Increased  Knowledge.  4X9 

a  more  complete  apprehension  of  the  truth  were  the 

studenfs3  f,th+r  ™  kft  b6hind  them"  Christi“ 

^tudents  avaded  themselves  of  many  important  lessons 
which  critics  had  brought  into  prominence  while  they  re- 
jec  ed  their  more  extravagant  conclusions.  Renan’s  Vie  de 
Jims  failed  to  shake  a  general  conviction.  It  was  accepted 

o  t/IrTof  -  b6tter  aSpSCt  a  Patheti0  Future — 

i  •.  llf®  °f,  Chnst  m  lts  Purely  external  features 
while  no  one  whose  faith  had  not  been  previously  shaken 

felt  anything  but  regret  and- pity  for  its  negation  of  the 

supernatural  at  the  expense  of  the  truthfulness  of  Christ. 

nd  meanwhile  the  literature  of  a  strong  and  wise  theology 
was  being  yearly  enriched  by  the  labours  of  men  whose 
earning  and  diligence  were  unsurpassed.  Winer  for  the 
rst  tune  produced  a  thorough  grammar  of  the  Hellenistic 
dialect.  Tholuck,  outliving  the  times  in  which  his  house 
was  attacked  and  his  person  insulted  because  he  reverenced 
ie  Bible,  outliving,  too,  the  day  when  he  could  only  find  one 
of  his  theological  students  who  read  the  Bible  for  devotional 
purposes,  began  a  new  epoch  by  his  Commentary  on  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  once  more  taught  men  to  regard 
the  whole  religion  of  the  Old  Testament  as  being  in  its 
essence  one  great  and  unassailable  prophecy.  From  schools 
of  orthodox  reaction,  more  or  less  rigidly  Lutheran  or 
re  ormed,  came  such  works  as  those  of  Keil,  and  Haver- 
nick,  of  stier  Olshausen,  and  Lange.  From  the  so-called'\ 
Mediating  Theology  ”_a  school  of  freer  spirit,  but  not 
untouched  by  the  scepticism  of  the  age,  came  the  works 
of  Gesenius,  Hitzig,  Delitzsch,  Huther,  De  Wette.1--* 
Reander  shed  over  Church  history  the  glow  of  his  ripe 
learning  and  large-hearted  piety.  Meyer  published  his 
critical  and  luminous  edition  of  the  New  Testament 
Dorner  in  his  Christology  produced  a  book  which  for  its 
speculative  depth  and  historic  erudition  was  worthy  to  take 

in  tp“ching  were  the  words  used  by  De  TVette  shortly  before  his  death 

E  E  2 


420 


Great  Exegetes. 

its  place  beside  the  very  greatest  works  of  Christian  orthodoxy. 
Ewald,  at  once  a  prophet  and  a  critic,  combining  in  an 
nnusnal  degree  the  gifts  of  learning,  originality,  and 
eloquence,  stood  haughtily  alone  on  a  peculiar  eminence,  and 
flung  over  every  part  of  Scripture  the  meteoric  gleam  of  his 
stormy  genius.  ^  In  every  Protestant  Church  of  Europe  was 
felt  the  stirring  of  a  new  life.  In  France  there  have  been 
such  labourers  in  various  fields  as  Vinet,  Monod,  Bersier, 
Bungener,  Naville,  Beuss,  Godet,  De  Pressense.  In 
German  Switzerland,  Hagenbach,  Auberlen,  Stahelin, 
Biggenbach,  Immer,  and  Keim.  In  Holland,  Kuenen, 
Scholten,  Van  Oosterzee.  In  Sweden  and  Denmark  such 
men  as  Klausen  and  Martensen.  And  there  is  scarcely 
one  among  all  these  theologians,  and  a  multitude  of  the 
highest  merit  who  are  here  left  unnamed,  who  does  not 
combine  the  deepest  reverence  for  the  divine  authority  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures  with  an  entire  rejection  of  that 
dogma  of  mechanical  inspiration,  which,  in  addition  to 
many  other  evils  has,  age  after  age,  introduced  so  much 
of  weakness  and  of  confusion  into  the  whole  system  of 
interpretation  of  those  by  whom  it  has  been  maintained. 

The  English  Church,  since  the  days  of  Bede  and  Alcuin, 
has  rarely,  perhaps  never,  been  in  the  forefront  of  Scriptural 
studies.  She  has  produced  many  masters  of  theology,  such 
as  Hooker,  Andrewes,  Chillingworth,  Whichcote,  Leighton, 
Pearson,  Barrow,  Bull,  Beveridge,  Waterland,  and  Butler. 
She  has  had  unequalled  preachers,  like  Latimer,  Donne, 
Henry  More,  Barrow,  Jeremy  Taylor,  South,  Burnet,  and 
Tillotson.  She  has  had  true  saints  of  God,  like  Bishop 
Ken,  and  Bishop  Wilson,  and  Bishop  Berkeley.  She 
has  had  great  scholars  and  critics,  like  Selden,  Brian 
Walton,  Pocock,  Lightfoot,  Bentley,  Mill,  and  Archbishop 
Lawrence.  She  has  had  incomparable  translators,  like 
Wiclif,  William  Tyndale,  Miles  Coverdale,  and  those 

1  Kurz  says  of  his  Jahrbilcher  that  “in  them  he  held  a  jeaily  ciut.o- 
do,-fd  over  the  collected  theological  and  biblical  literature  of  the  departed 
year.” 


421 


English  Exegetes. 

of  1611.  She  has  had  laborious  students  in  various 
branches  of  biblical  study,  like  Ussher,  Prideaux,  Matthew 
oole  Pardner,  and  the  editors  of  the  Critiei  Sacri ;  but 
w.th  the  exception  of  Colet  and  one  or  two  others,  she  has 
ad  but  few  great  exegetes  till  present  times.  She  has  had 
indeed  Hammond,  Whitby,  Leighton,  Patrick,  Horsley  but 
is  ere  a  single  English  commentary  before  the  last  genera¬ 
tion  except  the  Isaiah  of  Bishop  Lowth,  of  which  any  one 
Cou  d  say  without  extravagance  that  it  struck  out  a  new 
lme  or  marked  a  new  epoch  ?  Can  there  be  a  better  proof 
of  the  stagnation  of  fifty  years  ago  than  that  the  popular 
was  the  “  variorum  ”  mediocrity  of  D’Oyly  and 

The  views  of  our  theologians  down  to  very  recent  times 
have  been  conservative,  with  a  caution  which  has  not  seldom 
proved  itself  to  be  retrogressive.  The  dogma,  which  had 

?°,  S,“Ted  the  absolute’  supernatural,  homogeneous 
infallibility  of  every  word  and  letter  contained  in  the 

ible,  had  been  weighed  for  centuries  in  the  balances,  and 

never  without  being  found  wanting.  Every  argument  and 

principle  on  which  it  had  staked  its  existence  had  been 

exploded  by  deeper  investigation.  No  conception  mofel 

•subversive  of  Scr.ptural  authority  has  ever  been  devised  than  ! 

the  assertion,  that  in  the  Bible  we  must  accept  everything 

or  nothing.  That  notion,  which  so  irremediably  confounds/ 

the  truth  of  God  with  the  theological  notions  of  meJ 

has  been  responsible  for  crimes  and  errors  innumerable.’ 

ie  canon  which  it  maintained  was  indefensible:  its 

•science  has  been  proved  to  be  childish ;  its  ethics  are  tainted 

with  hatred  and  intolerance;  its  history  and  chronology 

are  obsolete ;  its  harmonistic  methods  are  casuistical  to  dhs- 

lonesty;  its  views  about  the  inspiration  of  the  vowel-points 

and  the  perfect  accuracy  of  the  text  have  been  covered 

with  confusion;  its  whole  method  of  interpretation  has 

been  discredited  and  abandoned.  Wherever  the  systems 

built  upon  this  dogma  have  been  rejected,  the  Bible  has 

ecome  more  dear  and  more  widely  understood.  And  vet  for 

& 


422 


Coleridge . 

a  considerable  period  the  main  body  of  the  English  Church, 
ignoring  the  philosophy  and  the  history  of  the  Continent, 
clung  with  tenacity  to  obsolete  conceptions,  and  failed  not 
only& to  further  the  progress  of  Scriptural  study,  but  even 
to  avail  themselves  of  the  sources  of  knowledge  which 

other  Churches  so  largely  used. 

Fifty  years  ago  the  Shibboleth  of  popular  orthodoxy  was 
the  indiscriminate  anathema  of  “  German  theology.”  If 
in  later  days  the  Church  of  England  has  made  an  immense 
advance,  the  progress  is  perhaps  more  due  to  Samuel  Taylor 
“Gnleridge  than  to  any  ordained  or  professional  theologian.1 
He  helped  to  deliver  English  Churchmen  from  their  ignorance 
of  German  literature,  and  their  terror  of  German  specula¬ 
tion.  In  his  Aids  to  Reflection  he  sketched  out  a  philo¬ 
sophy  of  religion  in  which  he  combined  the  highest 
teaching  of  the  best  English  theologians— of  men  like 
Hooker,  and  Jeremy  Taylor,  and  Archbishop  Leighton— with 
influences  derived  from  the  Neoplatonic  studies  of  his  youth, 
and  with  truths  which  he  had  learnt  from  Kant  and  Schelling 
in  his  maturer  years.  In  his  Confessions^  of  an  Inquiring 
Spirit,  he  was  the  first  to  show  his  fello w^ountrymen 2  with 
convincing  illustrations  and  impassioned  eloquence  that  the 
Rabbinic,  mediaeval  aniHpost-Reformation  dogma  cjhinspiia.- 
timi  could  _  only  lead  To  irrev  ereunTorlcasuisfry .  He  taught 
them  to  acquire  their  estimate  of  Scripture  from  the 
contents  and  from  the  claims  of  Scripture  itself,  not  from 
the  theories  and  inventions  of  men  respecting  it.  He  proved 
how  clearly  a  Christian  thinker  could  see  that  the  various 
books  of  the  Bible  greatly  differ  from  each  other  in  value, 
and  could  yet  honour  the  Bible  as  deeply  as  the  Apostles 

1  In  his  later  years  (1816-1834)  Coleridge  more  or  less  entirely  abandoned 
poetry  for  philosophy  and  theology.  His  Confessions  of  an  Inquiring  Spirit 
were  not  published  till  1840,  six  years  after  his  death. 

2  Archdeacon  Hare,  Professor  Maurice,  Sterling,  and  Cardinal  Newman  all 
testify  to  the  influence  of  Coleridge,  nor  will  their  estimate  be  weakened  by  the 
characteristically  splenetic  sneers  of  Carlyle  (see  J.  S.  Mills  Dissertations; 
Dr.  Hort  in  Cambridge  Essays  for  1856  ;  Remusat,  Rev.  des  Deux  Mondes, 
October,  1856  ;  Dr.  A.  S.  Farrar’s  Bampton  Lectures ,  pp.  475-479  ;  Rigg’s Mod. 
Anglican  Theol.  1857;  Principal  Tulloch  on  Coleridge  as  a  Thinker  m  the 
Nineteenth  Century  for  January,  1885). 


Influence  of  Coleridge.  423 

themselves.  He  showed  how  possible  it  was  to  love  the 
Bible  as.  a  book  which  contains  the  word  of  God,  and  yet 
to  read  it  as  one  of  the  most  unimpeachably  orthodox  of 
German  theologians  says  that  it  should  be  read— “  as  a  book 
which,  with  all  its  Divinity,  with  its  divine  origin  and  divine 
ends,  is  still  written  by  human  hands  for  human  beings,  for  a 
human  eye,  a  human  heart,  a  human  understanding;  as  a 
book  which,  though  written  for  all  times,  even  for  eternity, 
still  refers  to  certain  times  and  occasions,  and  must  from 
these  given  times  and  occasions  be  interpreted.”  1  It  was  for 
every  reason  which  made  him  prize  and  revere  the  Scriptures 
pi  ize,  revere,  and  love  them  beyond  all  other  books — that 
he  rejected  as  no  longer  tenable  a  theory  which  falsified  the 
whole  body  of  their  harmonies  and  symmetrical  gradations, 
and  “  turned  their  breathing  organism  into  a  colossal 
Memnon’s  head  with  a  hollow  passage  for  a  voice.” 

It  was  this  spirit  which  animated  many  great  English 
teachers  in  modem  days.  To  it  were  due  the  sermons  of 
Arnold  and  of  Robertson,  of  Whately  and  Thirlwall,  of  Hare 
and  Kingsley,  which  have  been  so  rich  in  the  noblest  influences 
alike  upon  the  young  and  the  old.  It  was  in  this  spirit  that 
one  whom  the  foremost  of  living  statesmen  has  rightly  called 

“a  spiritual  splendour”  —  Frederic  Denison  "Maurice _ 

laboured  for  years  amid  religious  obloquy  and  opposition, 
leaving  to  the  English  Church  the  legacy  not  only  of  writings 
full  of  thought,  beauty,  and  tenderness,  but  also  of  a  stainless 
example  and  a  holy  life.  It  was  this  spirit  which  has  given 
us  in  the  Greek  Testament  of  Alford,  in  the  dictionaries  of 
the  Bible  and  of  Christian  biography,  and  in  some  recent 
commentaries,  worthy  monuments  of  English  candour  and 
erudition.  It  was  this  spirit  which  shone  forth  in  Milman’s 
History  of  the  Jews  and  History  of  Christianity.  It  was 
this  spirit  which  enabled  the  vivid  historic  genius  of 
Arthur  Penrhyn  Stanley  to  recall  before  us  the  stately  and 
heroic  figures,  the  stirring  and  memorable  scenes,  of  Scripture 
history,  till  the  pages  of  Genesis,  Exodus,  Judges,  and  the 

1  Hagenbacli,  Germ,  nationalism,  p.  192. 


424 


Faith  and  Freedom , 


Kings,  once  more  thrilled  with  the  life  and  teemed  with  the 
instructiveness  of  which  they  had  been  deprived  by  an 
irrational  conventionality.  These  men  during  all  their  days 
had  the  honour  to  endure  the  beatitude  of  malediction. 
They  were  pursued  by  the  attacks  of  no  small  portion 
of  the  clergy,  and  of  those  who  called  themselves  the  religious 
world.  But  they  handed  on  the  torch  of  sincerity  and  truth. 
If  their  works  were  received  at  the  time  of  their  appearance 
with  vehement  dislike  and  strong  denunciation,  as  regards 
the  dead  at  any  rate  the  opposition  is  silenced,  the  denuncia¬ 
tion  has  rolled  away  into  idle  echoes.  They  have  taken  their 
place  among  the  acknowledged  worthies  ot  their  Church  and 
nation,  and  in  spite  of  derision  and  reproach,  “  how  are  they 
numbered  among  the  children  of  God  and  their  lot  among 
the  saints  !  ” 

And  so  far  from  being  disturbed  or  shaken  by  their  free, 
glad,  and  earnest  investigations,  it  is  by  means  of  those  very 
investigations  that  the  Bible  has  triumphed  over  keen 
ridicule,  over  charges  of  fiction,  over  naturalist  explanations, 
over  mythical  theories,  over  destructive  criticism.  By  the 
combined  labours  of  many  learned  men,  the  spirit  not  of  fear 
but  of  love,  and  a  sound  mind,  has  given  us  a  Revised  Version, 
which — after  having  been  received  as  once  the  Septuagint,  and 
the  Vulgate,  and  Luther’s  version,  and  our  own  Authorised 
Version  were  received,  with  dislike  and  suspicion — is  quietly 
but  surely  winning  its  way  into  honour  and  reverence.  Our 
own  day  has  given  us  comments  on  St.  Paul’s  Epistles,  and  on 
the  Gospel  and  Epistles  of  St.  John,  superior  in  some  respects 
to  any  which  have  yet  been  produced  in  any  age  or  any  branch 
of  the  church  of  Christ.  The  history  which  we  have  been 
considering  is  not  exclusively  a  history  of  darkness  and  of 
mistake ;  it  is  a  history  also  of  the  triumph  of  light  over 
darkness,  of  truth  over  error,  of  faith  and  freedom  over  tyranny 
and  persecution.  It  is  a  history  of  the  dawning  light  and  of 
the  broadening  clay.  By  the  grace  of  God  the  majority  have 
not  been  too  obstinate  to  unlearn  the  errors,  or  to  pluck  up 
the  deeply-rooted  prejudices  of  the  past,  and  hence  in  a 


Progress. 


4z5 


Church  as  courageous,  as  active,  as  rich  in  all  good  works  as 

in  any  age  of  the  past,  we  can  still  say  with  thankful  hearts 
Manet  %mmota  Fides.  * 

In  that  Church  a  living  piety  was  kindled  once  more  by  the 
vange  ical  revival ;  the  spirit  of  reverence,  and  the  sense  of 
Historic  continuity  were  renewed  by  the  Oxford  movement  • 
n  connexion  with  all  that  was  progressive  in  the 

earning,  science,  and  culture  of  the  age,  was  maintained 
m  other  schools  of  large  tolerance  and  comprehensive  charity 
The  mercy  of  God  has  given  us  many  outpourings  of  the 

new  e°°S  f  ni-6SS  be  tllrougl1  our  own  guilt,  our  blind- 
ss,  our  formalism,  our  religious  factions,  our  retrogression 

a  ong  e  steps  of  our  Exodus  from  the  land  of  intellectual 

ar  ness  and  spiritual  thraldom  we  may  trust  that  the  golden 

candlestick  of  our  Church  in  England  will  never  be  removed 

. that  Ze  “ay  dar®  t0  enc°urage  such  a  hope,  something 
moie  is  needful  than  that  we  learn  to  despise  the  wrano-lmg 

pettiness  of  party  spirit,  the  spurious  and  dishonest  criticism 
?  /Jar  y  Journalism,  and  the  idle  reiteration  of  party  shib¬ 
boleths.  We  shall  never  rightly  understand  the  Holy 
cnptures  unless  we  keep  alive  among  us  the  Spirit  of 
Freedom  and  the  Spirit  of  Progress.  It  is  necessary  that 
we  should  read  the  handwriting  of  God  written  upon  the 
palace-walls  of  all  tyrannies,  whether  secular  or  sacerdotal 
It  is  necessary  that  we  should  learn  that  “  there  is  nothing 
so  <.  angerous,  because  there  is  nothing  so  revolutionary  and 
convulsive  as  the  strain  to  keep  things  fixed,  when  all  the 
wor  ^  is  by  the  very  law  of  its  creation  in  eternal  pro- 
gress.  it  is  necessary  that  we  should  read  in  God’s  Bible 
o  History  that  “the  cause  of  all  the  evil  in  the  world 
may  be  traced  to  that  deadly  error  of  human  indolence 
M  .  cun'uptmn,  that  it  is  our  duty  to  preserve,  and  not 
to  improve.  It  is  above  all  essential  that  we  should 
see  the  hand  of  God  m  current  events,  and  understand  the 
tnoughts  which  He  is  expressing  by  the  movements  in  the 
midst  of  which  we  live.  Since  the  days  of  the  Fathers 

1  Dr.  Arnold. 


426 


Science. 


and  the  Schoolmen  every  sphere  of  knowledge  has  been 
almost  immeasurably  dilated,  and  many  conceptions  regarded 
as  irrefragable  have  been  utterly  revolutionised.  Again  and 
again  have  God's  other  revelations  flashed  upon  the  sacred 
page  a  light  which  has  convicted  its  most  positive  interpreters 
of  fundamental  errors.  Nine  years  before  the  Confession  of 
Augsburg  (1530)  Magellan  had  sailed  round  the  world  ,  tlnee 
years  before  the  death  of  Luther  (1546)  Copernicus  had  pub¬ 
lished  his  De  Revolutionibus  Ovbiujti  Coelestium.  The  Synod 
of  Dort  was  sitting,  and  Gerhard  was  elaborating  his  Loci  during 
the  very  years  in  which  Galileo  and  Kepler  were  making  their 
discoveries.  Newton  was  discovering  the  law  of  gravitation 
while  Calovius  was  writing  his  JBiblicc  IllustTatct.  Since  the 
phases  of  Venus  were  revealed  to  the  telescope  of  Galileo 
we  have  learnt  the  existence  of  infinite  space  thronged  with 
innumerable  worlds.  Since  fossil  bones  were  submitted 
to  the  prophetic  eye  of  Cuvier  we  have  learnt  that  infinite 
time  has  been  peopled  with  innumerable  existences.  The 
search  into  caves  and  river-beds  has  shown  us  the  immemorial 
relics  and  flint  implements  of  primeval  man.  The  discoveries 
of  philology  have  laid  open  to  us  the  earliest  records  of  his 
language.  A  scientific  observer,  second  perhaps  to  none 
since  the  days  of  Newton,  after  having  been  treated  all  his 
life  long  as  an  enemy  to  religion,  was  laid,  but  three  years 
ago,  in  his  honoured  grave  in  Westminster  Abbey.  His 
theories,  which  have  been  scores  of  times  denounced  from  this 
very  pulpit,  are  now  not  only  accepted  by  the  great  majority 
of  scientific  men  throughout  the  world,  but  have  been 
admitted  by  many  leading  theologians  to  be  in  no  sense 
irreconcilable  with  sacred  truths.  Lntirely  apart  from  his 
central,  and  as  yet  unproven  hypothesis,  he  has  illustrated  the 
necessity  for  scientific  methods,  and  has  furnished  us  with 
new  and  startling  conceptions  of  the  order,  development, 
and  maintenance  of  living  organisms.  It  would  be  idle  to 
suppose  that  discoveries  so  vast  and  hypotheses  so  splendid 
should  have  no  effect  on  the  deepest  beliefs  of  men. 
The  students  of  science  have  exercised  a  mighty  influence 


427 


Science  and  Religion. 

over  theology,  were  it  only  that  by  their  linear  progress 
and  magnificent  achievements  they  have  stimulated  that 
spirit  of  inquiry  which  for  many  centuries  had  only  gyrated 
within  limits  prescribed  too  often  by  the  ignorance  of  priests. 

What  should  be  the  attitude  of  religion  towards  those  who 
have  enriched  the  life  of  man  by  these  superb  contributions 
of  advancing  knowledge  ?  We  know  what  it  has  been.  It 
has  been  an  attitude  first  of  fierce  persecution,  then  of 
timid  compromise,  lastly,  of  thankless  and  inevitable  accept¬ 
ance.  Although  some  great  discoverers  have  belonged,  like 
Roger  Bacon  and  Copernicus,  to  the  ranks  of  the  clergy, 
there  is  scarcely  a  nascent  science  which  the  accredited 
defenders  of  religion  have  not  in  their  ignorance  striven  to 
overwhelm ;  scarcely  a  great  discovery  which,  in  the  first 
instance,  they  did  not  denounce  as  heretical  or  blasphemous. 
Such  an  attitude  deserved  the  defeats  which  it  has 
received — defeats,  not  of  religion,  not  of  Christianity,  not  of 
the  very  smallest  fraction  of  the  truths  of  God,  but 
defeats  of  the  obstructiveness,  the  obscurantism,  or  at 
best  the  arrogant  imperfection  of  those  who  misinterpreted 
the  requirements  of  true  religion,  and  mistook  for  its 
oracles  the  echoes  of  .  their  own  prejudice  and  pride.1 
Five  hundred  years  of  mistaken  opposition,  from  the  days 
of  Roger  Bacon  down  to  those  of  Darwin,  may,  it  is  to  be 
hoped,  have  convinced  theologians  that  all  their  teachings 
are  neither  infallible  nor  divine.  It  is  only  the  foundation  of 
God  that  remaineth  sure,  and  on  that  foundation  have  been 
built  also  the  irrefragable  conclusions  of  science.  We  are  not, 
indeed,  called  upon  to  accept  at  once  every  unproven  hypo¬ 
thesis,  or  to  mistake  for  science  mere  assertions  about  that 
which  is  unknowable,  or  that  which  can  only  be  spiritu¬ 
ally  discerned.  It  is  quite  true  that  the  votaries  of  science 
have  often  had  as  little  right  to  speak  in  the  name  of  science 
as  the  theologians  have  had  little  right  to  speak  in  the  name 

r  1  The  lives  of  Virgilius,  Roger  Bacon,  Copernicus,  Campanula,  Columbus, 
Vesalius,  Galileo,  Kepler,  Descartes,  and  very  many  more  are  full  of  warnings 
against  the  rash  abuse  of  Scripture  texts. 


428 


Biblical  Criticism . 


of  God.  Nevertheless  it  remains  certain  that  true  science 
and  true  religion  are  twin  sisters,  each  studying  her  own 
sacred  book  of  God,  and  nothing  but  disaster  has  arisen  from 
the  petulant  scorn  of  the  one  and  the  false  fear  and  cruel 
tyrannies  of  the  other.  Let  them  study  in  mutual  love  and 
honour  side  by  side,  and  each  pronounce  respecting  those 
things  which  alooe  she  knows. 

But  the  advance  of  the  human  intellect  has  not  lain  solely 
in  the  realm  of  natural  science.  Philosophy  and  psychology 
— the  labours  of  Descartes,  Spinoza,  Leibnitz,  Wolff,  Kant, 
Fichte,  Jacobi,  Schelling,  Hegel,  and  of  their  successors — 
have  turned  mens  thoughts  inwards,  and  have  shown  the 
necessary  limitations  of  human  knowledge,  while  they  have 
failed  to  shake  the  fundamentals  of  faith. 

The  study  of  comparative  religion,  a  study  of  yesterday, 
and  mainly  founded  by  students  who  still  live  and  work 
in  the  midst  of  us,  has  shown  how  many  are  the  religious 
books  of  Humanity,  and  how  they  too — though  they  stand  so 
immeasurably  below  the  Scriptures  in  worth  and  sacredness — 
have  suffered  from  the  analogous  misinterpretations  of  an 
ill-directed  superstition. 

Nor  while  physical  science  and  metaphysical  inquiry  were 
thus  advancing  by  leaps  and  springs  was  it  likely  that  criticism 
should  remain  stationary.  The  demonstration  of  the  forgery 
of  the  Donation  of  Constantine  and  the  Decretals  of  Isidore 
on  which  had  been  built  the  great  fabric  of  papal  supremacy 
over  the  national  Churches  ; 1  the  examination  by  Daille  of 
the  Ignatian  Epistles  (16G6);  the  letters  of  Bentley  on  the 
Epistles  of  Phalaris  (1699);  the  theory  of  Wolf  as  to  the 
origin  of  the  Homeric  poems  ;  the  rejection  of  the  genuineness 
of  the  so-called  works  of  Dionysius  the  Areopagite ; 2  and 
many  similar  discoveries,  awoke  the  minds  of  men  during  the 
course  of  two  centuries  to  the  fact  that  pseudepigraphy 
was  a  common  phenomenon  alike  of  Jewish,  heathen,  and 

1  Valla’s  discourse,  De  Potest .  Imp.  et  Eccl.  was  written  in  1440. 

By  Valla,  who  is  followed  by  Erasmus,  Annott.  in  Acts  xviii.  34.  See 
Ussher,  Dissert,  de  Scriptis  Dionysio  Suppositis ,  1690. 


Widening  Knowledge. 


429 

Christian  literature,  and  showed  them  the  decisive  character 
of  internal  evidence.  Niebuhr  applied  the  solvent  of  criti¬ 
cism  to  the  series  of  legends  which  passed  for  Roman  history 
and  a  multitude  of  successors  in  his  school  has  proved  thl’ 

credence!"^  ^  °n°e  re0eived  ““questioned 

Amid  this  outburst  of  new  and  varied  knowledge  which  has 
enlarged  m  so  many  directions  our  comprehension  of  God’s 
dealings  with  our  race,  it  would  be  disheartening  indeed 
and  it  would  be  a  contradiction  to  the  whole  course  of  history’ 
if  we  had  made  no  advance  in  our  knowledge  of  Scripture 

witlTthe  r  if  We  had  remained  <=« 

with  the  exegesis  of  the  Rabbis,  who  were  children  of  an 

imperfect  and  abrogated  dispensation,  or  the  Fathers  who 

woiid  ’  TT  Jt*  ifa'Iing  and  fellen  l6aves  of  the  “Id 
’  .  1  the  Schoolmen  in  the  ages  of  an  all  but  uni¬ 
versal  ignorance.  It  was  inevitable,  nay,  it  was  most 
necessary,  nay,  more,  the  sacredness  of  truth-which  ‘L 
<us  impossible  to  be  soiled  by  any  outward  touch  as  the 
sunbeam  made  it  imperative  that  new  principles  of  in¬ 
quiry  and  modern  methods  of  criticism  should  be  extended  to 
hose  records  of  revelation  in  which  it  was  certain  that  nothin^ 
could  suffer  which  was  intrinsically  truthful  or  divine  Even 
in  the  dawn  of  the  Reformation  a  Cajetan  no  less'  than  a 
uther,  and  in  the  next  age  a  Simon  no  less  than  a  Spinoza 
had  recognised  the  freedom  of  Scriptural  criticism  The 
eformers  had  struck  the  Apocrypha  out  of  the  Canon  and 
gone  far  to  place  some  books  of  the  Bible— as  had  been 
done  centuries  earlier  by  some  of  the  Rabbis,  and  by  some 
of  the  Fathers— in  the  ranks  of  deutero-canonicity.  In  the 
yeftr-F?5^thS-French  physiciaipAstmc,  discovered  the  double”"^ 

elements  in  the  Book  of 
Gese^Since^te^rcffilcism,  both  TEtoric  and  philo- 
ogica!,  has  been  applied  to  every  narrative  and  every  section 
of  Scripture.  Many  of  its  results  have  taken  their  place 
among  valued  truths;  many  of  its  assertions  have  been 
triumphantly  refuted.  It  has  overthrown  false  human  theories, 


430 


Fearlessness. 


it  has  not  shaken  so  much  as  the  fringe  of  a  single  truth. 
But  the  notion  of  verbal  infallibility  could  not  possibly  sur¬ 
vive  the  birth  of  historic  inquiry,  which  showed  in  Scrip¬ 
ture  as  elsewhere  an  organic  growth,  and  therefore  a  necessary 
period  of  immature  development.  And  meanwhile  we  have 
been  taught  of  God  a  fearlessness  which  enables  us  to  ex¬ 
amine  every  critical  question  with  tolerance  and  candour. 
We  have  learnt  to  see,  not  only  that  everything  is  not  lost, 
but  even  that  nothing  is  lost  if  criticism  succeeds  in  proving 
that  the  Pentateuch  is  composed  of  different  elements,  and 
the  Book  of  Chronicles  a  late  and  one-sided  narrative,  or  that 
there  were  two  Isaiahs,  and  two  Zechariahs,  or  that  the  old 
Antilegomena  must  still  be  regarded  as  of  dubious  genuine¬ 
ness.  Nay,  more,  all  is  not  lost  if  we  were  even  compelled  to 
make  the  extravagant  admission  that  the  Pastoral  Epistles 
were  pseudonymous,  and  the  Fourth  Gospel  was  not  written  by 
St.  John.  Where  the  Spirit  of  God  is  there  is  liberty.  All 
these  questions  have  been  under  discussion  for  many  years  ; 
yet  to  multitudes  of  those  who  on  these  questions  have  come 
to  decisions  which  are  in  opposition  to  the  current  opinions, 
the  Bible  is  still  the  divinest  of  all  books  and  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  is  still  the  Son  of  God,  the  Saviour  of  the  World. 

aid  if  any  man  ask,  “  How  are  we  to  discriminate  between 
that  which  in  the  Bible  ought  to  be  to  us  the  immediate 
word  of  God,  and  that  which,  having  been  but  relative  and 
transient,  is  not  His  word  to  us  ?  ” — I  answer  that  not  only 
V  is  there  not  the  slightest  practical  difficulty  in  doing  so,  but 
that  the  question  shows,  surely,  a  strange  and  unworthy 
timidity.  In  the  first  place,  no  theory  which  can  be  invented 
will  give  the  certitude  which  is  claimed  for  every  petty 
detail  of  sectarian  dissidence  or  theological  terminology ;  nor 
can  any  pretence  of  an  infallible  decision  ever  give  infalli¬ 
bility  to  hosts  of  fallible  and  varying  interpretations.  But 
for  all  essential  truths,  have  we  nothing  to  guide  us  into  cer¬ 
tainty  ?  Have  we  no  reason  “lighted  bxJjad,  and  lighting 
to  God,  res  illuminata,  illuminans  ”  ?  Have  we  within  us 
no  voice  of  Conscience,  “that  aboriginal  Vicar  of  Christ,  a 


431 


Revelation. 

Prophet  in  its  informations,  a  Monarch  in  its  peremptoriness, 
a  Priest  m  its  blessings  and  anathemas  ”  ?  Have  we  no 
hpint_o£_God-to  guide  us,  or  has  He  abdicated  His  office 
since  the  days  of  St.  John,  or,  at  any  rate,  since  the 
days  of  St  Augustine?  Is  it  not  enough  that,  to  us,  the 
test  of  Gods  word  is  the  teaching  of  Him  who  is  the  Word 
ot  God  ?  Is  it  not  an  absolutely  plain  and  simple  rule  that 
anything  m  the  Bible  which  teaches  or  seems  to  teach  any- 
ung  which  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  love,  the  gentle¬ 
ness,  the  truthfulness,  the  purity  of  Christ’s  gospel,  is  not 
Gods  word  to  us,  however  clearly  it  stands  on  the  Bible 
page  ?  i  The  Bible,  as  I  have  already  said,  has  been  quoted  to 
sanction  despotism,  tyrannicide,  priestly  usurpation,  poly¬ 
gamy,  slavery,  cunning,  assassination,  cruel  superstitions,  re¬ 
morseless  intolerance,  exterminating  war.  It  has  been 
quoted  to  slander  the  Apostle,  to  crush  the  reformer  to 
discourage  the  student,  to  break  the  hearts  of  the  saints 
ot  God.  Such  applications  of  Holy  Writ,  even  though  an 
Angel  from  heaven  utter  them,  are  not  and  cannot  be°to  us 
the  word  of  God.  We  shall  find  in  Scripture  all  that  is 
necessary  for  the  salvation  of  our  souls ;  we  shall  find  in  it 
the  few  great  moral  principles  which  suffice  for  the  guidance 
of  our  life.  Whenever  we  are  quoting  it  to  stimulate  the 
eneigy,  to  alleviate  the  misery,  to  promote  the  happiness  of 
mankind— whenever  we  are  able  to  use  its  words  as  arrows  of 
lghtnmg  to  slay  the  Python  of  corruption,  or  to  shatter 
the  strongholds  of  oppression,  robbery,  and  wrong,— then  we 
are  using  it  m  accordance  with  Christ’s  spirit,— 'then  we  are 
indubitably  and  indisputably  right.  But  when  we  use  it  to"~~7 
oppose  science,  to  stimulate  hatred,  to  check  progress  to 
crush  independence,  to  buttress  tyranny,  then  we  are  using 
it  for  the  injury  of  mankind,  and  therefore  not  to  promote* 
but  to  hinder  the  will  of  Him  Who  spake  in  times  past  unto  - 

the  fathers  by  the  Prophets,  but  hath  in  these  last  days 
spoken  unto  us  by  His  Son. 

In  the  name  of  that  Son  of  God  is  the  secret  of  our  progress, 

1  See  the  remarks  of  Luther  quoted  by  Kostlin,  ii.  260. 


432 


The  One  Foundation. 

of  our  security,  of  our  freedom,  of  our  strength.1  If  we  build 
upon  Him,  we  build  on  tbe  one  Foundation.  It  is  because 
they  put  themselves  in  place  of  Him,  that  hierarchies  have 
fallen  into  corruption  and  ruin.  It  is  because  they  failed  to 
comprehend  His  nature  that  philosophies  have  passed  away. 
It  is  because  they  thrust  the  dead  letter  in  the  place 
of  His  living  Spirit,  that  religious  movements  have  ended 
in  hatred  and  obstructiveness.  It  is  because  they 
have  mistaken  the  dawn  for  a  conflagration  that  theolo¬ 
gians  have  so  often  been  the  foes  of  light.2  It  is  because 
they  have  appealed  to  self-deceiving  intuitions  as  infallible 
proofs  of  their  own  human  interpretations,  that  their  cherished 
conclusions  have  so  often  been  overthrown.  Hut  no  Church, 
and  no  system,  and  no  man  who  has  been  rooted  and 
grounded  m  Him  in  love  has  ever  failed  to  increase  with  the 
increase  of  God.  Amid  the  tyrannies  of  priestcraft,  amid  the 
aberrations  of  theology,  amid  the  doubts  and  difficulties  of 
criticism,  the  Bible  has  continued  to  he  the  inalienable  pos¬ 
session  of  the  Christian  Church.  No  attempt  to  keep  the 
sacred  writings  as  a  seven-sealed  book  in  the  hands  of  the 
clergy,  no  insuperable  difficulties  created  by  dogmas  about 
inspiration,  no  false  systems  of  interpretation  built  upon 
those  dogmas,  have  been  able  to  snatch  the  Bible  wholly 
from  the  hands  of  the  vast  unknown  multitude  whom  God 
has  known  for  His,  and  who  have  departed  from  iniquity. 
To  them — the  simple  and  the  unselfish  and  the  pure  in 
heart — it  has  ever  been  as  still  it  is  a  guide  to  the  feet  and  a 
lamp  to  the  path,  and  in  the  quaint  language  of  our  Transla¬ 
tors  Preface  “  a  granary  of  wholesome  food  against  fenowed 
traditions.”  For  them  there  has  always  been  that  pure  exe¬ 
gesis  of  the  heart  which  to  the  pride  of  an  anathematising 
theology  has  often  been  unknown.  Beading  the  Scriptures 

1  “  All  the  seeming  contradictions  of  Scripture  are  reconciled  in  Jesus 

*  "When  John  Owen  (  Works'  xix.  310)  said  that  Newton’s  discoveries  were 
“  built  on  fallible  phenomena,  and  advanced  by  many  arbitrary  presumptions 
against  evident  testimonies  of  Scripture,"  his  sentences  may  stand  as  hut  one 
specimen  of  hundreds  and  thousands  of  the  obscurantist  utterances  ol 
theologians  who  attribute  infallibility  to  their  own  exegetical  errors. 


433 


The  Scriptures. 

not  with  the  eyes  of  partisanship,  of  suspicion,  or  of  self- 
interest,  but  with  the  eyes  of  love,  and  “into  the  soul’s 
vernacular,”  they  have  found  it  rich  in  blessing  and  con¬ 
solation.  The  secret  of  the  Lord  has  been  with  them 
that  fear  Him,  and  He  has  shown  them  His  covenant. 
For  more  than  1700  years  party  theologians,  who  have 
sought  mainly  for  proof-texts  to  confound  the  heresies  of 
others  and  to  build  up  despotism  for  themselves,  have  gone 
astray;  but  also’ for  more  than  1700  years,  with  no  more 
need  than  the  early  Christians  had  for  dialectic  definitions 
or  elaborate  theories,  the  simple  have  learned  wisdom. 
Unencumbered  by  ponderous  learning,  uncrushed  by  a  vast 
apparatus  of  systems,  unterrified  by  difficulties,  indifferent 
to  wranglings,  unperverted  by  aberrations,  they  have 
not  been  seduced  from  the  simplicity  which  is  in  Christ 
Jesus  into  pathless  labyrinths  of  allegory  and  dogma.  They 
have  not  seen  but  have  yet  believed,  and  have  never  been 
disappointed  of  their  hope.1  Bengel  in  his  brief  summary 
of  the  epochs  of  exegesis  calls  the  first  Nativa ,  and  that — 
without  its  Judaic  and  Rabbinic  weakness — all  true  Christians 
however  humble  have  always  enjoyed.  The  saving  know¬ 
ledge  of  Holy  Scripture  “  is  a  science,”  as  Pascal  said,  “  not 
of  the  intellect,  but  of  the  heart.”  2  And  therefore  in  this 
respect  also  the  history  at  which  we  have  glanced  is  full 
of  encouragement.  The  supremacy  of  the  Scriptures  is 
assured  when  they  are  seen  to  be  human  as  well  as  divine, 
and  are  not  regarded  as  the  sole  source  of  revelation,  but 
rather  as  the  record  of  its  progressive  development.  They 
are  indeed  the  witness  to  evangelic  truth,  but  for  that  truth 
when  once  attained  we  have  the  yet  surer  witness  of  Faith. 
When  the  Church  has  forgotten  this  co-ordinate  claim  of  Faith, 
when  she  has  rested  content  in  slothful  bondage,  when  she  has 

1  “  The  unlearned  multitude  have  obtained  more  good  from  the  Bible  than 
the  learned  schools,  because,  following  the  hermeneutics  of  nature,  they  do 
not  attempt  to  enjoy  it  all  at  once.  For  that  is  beyond  human  power.  For 
every  day  its  care,  for  every  time  its  text  ;  there  are  texts  for  all  times.  The 
devout  heart  finds  it  out  from  amidst  the  mass,  and  with  its  meaning  consoles 
itself  for  the  rest.”  Reuss,  p.  599,  E.  T. 

2  Pascal,  Pensies,  ii.  17,  §  106. 


F  F 


434 


Christ  the  Interpreter. 


thrust  a  book,  even  the  most  sacred,  between  herself  and  the 
living  continuous  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God, 
when  she  has  confounded  theology  with  religion  and  the  cleigy 
with  the  Church— then,  by  salutary  discipline,  by  needful 
epochs  of  defeats  and  apathy,  God  has  led  her  back  from  her 
wanderings,  and  once  more  turned  her  gaze  to  the  Sun  ol 
Righteousness,  and  set  her  feet  on  the  one  Rock  against 
which  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail. 

V  And  lastly,  if  we  need  for  the  understanding  of  Holy 
Scripture  a  Guide  who  cannot  fail,  if  we  would  learn  such 
principles  of  interpretation  as  shall  secure  us  not  indeed 
against  literary  errors  of  criticism  and  theory,  which 
must  always  be  incident  to  our  fallible  natures,  but  against 
every  error  which  could  be  pernicious  to  mankind  or  perilous 
to  our  own  souls,  we  need  but  to  study  the  method  of  the 
Lord  Christ  Himself.  He  is  the  one  Divine  Angelus 
Interpres  et  Divinae  veritatis  internuntius. 1  The  errors  of 
which  we  have  been  unwilling  witnesses  could  never 
have  arisen  if  men  had  followed,  instead  of  reversing, 
the  methods  which  He  taught  by  His  precepts  and 
illustrated  by  His  example.  By  no  word  that  He  uttered 
did  He  sanction  that  mechanical  theory  of  inspiration  which 
“  is  at  variance  with  the  whole  form  and  fashion  of  the 
Bible,  and  is  destructive  of  all  that  is  holiest  in  man  and 
highest  in  religion.”  2  (When  He  lived  on  earth  a  system  of 
interpretation  had  already  attained  to  its  full  proportions,  to 
which  His  own  was  so  entirely  opposed,  that  one  of  the  first 
things  which  the  multitudes  observed  respecting  Him  was 
that^He  condemned  it  by  His  exampler^That  system  was 
the  Rabbinic,  the  Pharisaic,  the  method  7of  the  Scribes— a 
system  servile,  secondhand,  traditional,  superstitious,  self- 
interested,  denunciative,  fantastic — and  its  mam  features 
have  been  continued  by  direct  affiliation  thiough  the 
Christian  centuries  down  to  our  own.  v  What  was  His  atti- 

1  Buddeus,  Pracf.  ad  Rambach,  Instt.  Berm.,  ad  fin.  Comp.  Merx,  Erne 
Rede  vom  Auslegen,  p.  43  ;  ‘  ‘  Wann  wird,  das  Thema  bearbeitet  werden  :  Jesus 
Veteris  Testamenti  interpres  primarinsl  ” 

2  Westcott,  Introd.  to  the  Gospels,  p.  5. 


435 


Christ  the  Interpreter . 

tude  towards  that  system?  There  is  not  one  of  its 
erroneous  principles  which  He  did  not  tacitly  discounten¬ 
ance  or  expressly  condemn.  The  Scribes  relied  on  precedent  • 
He  taught  with  authority.  They  overlaid  the  Law  Sh 
inferences ;  He  told  them  that  they  set  the  Word  of  God 
at  naught  by  their  traditions.  They  claimed  the  power  to 
shut  out  all  except  their  adherents  from  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven;  He  flung  open  its  gates  to  all  the  world!  They 
clutched  in  their  own  hands  the  key  of  knowledge  ;  He 
wrenched  it  from  their  grasp  and  gave  it  to  fishermen  and 
publicans.  They  with  false  reverence  had  counted  the  very 
letters  of  their  Bible;  He  told  them  that  they  were 
ignorant  of  its  most  essential  principles.  They  explained 
Scripture  theologically,  scientifically,  with  infinite  and  elab¬ 
orate  subtlety  ;  He  seized  the  one  essential  message  of  its 
spiritual  teaching.1  .  They  insisted  on  dogmas  and  minutiae  ; 
He  broadened  the  significance  of  Scripture  into  that  of  its 
central  truths.  They  were  ready  to  stone  a  man  for  blasphemy 
against  Moses  if,  m  spite  of  the  progressing  ages,  he  treated  an’v 
utterance  of  the  Pentateuch  as  being  other  than  eternally 
valid  and  supernaturally  divine ;  He  taught  that  some  of  the 
Mosaic  regulations,  in  themselves  intrinsically  imperfect,  were 
"illy  a  concession  to  the  hardness  of  men’s  hearts.  They, 
lastly,  weie  ever  extracting  from  the  Scriptures  some  pretext 
lor  condemning  Him,  for  condemning  His  disciples,  for  con¬ 
demning  the  great  mass  of  mankind  except  themselves;  His 
favourite  and  thrice- repeated  quotation— condemning  the 
spirit  of  hatred,  condemning  the  spirit  of  letter-worship,  con¬ 
demning  the  bondage  of  formalism — was  “  Go  ye  and  learn 
"hat  that  meaneth,  I  will  have  mercy  and  not  sacrifice.”  It 
was  thus  that  Christ  supported  the  Divine  authority  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  Schemes  of  interpretation,  whether  Rabbinic, 
Kabbalistic,  Alexandrian,  Patristic,  Scholastic,  Dogmatic' 
Philosophical,  Psychological,  or  Practical,  may  follow  false 
developments  and  abound  in  erroneous  details  ; 2  and  so  far  as 


See  Matt.  xxu.  29-32;  Mark  xii.  24-27  ;  Luke  xx.  34-38. 
pfpr)\ovs  Kcvocpuvias,  1  Tim.  vi.  20  ;  2  Tim  ii.  16. 


F  F  2 


436 


One  Thing  Needful. 

those  who  apply  them  are  dominated  by  the  spirit  of  pride, 
jealousy,  hatred,  or  partisanship  their  oppressive  narrowness 
may  inflict  immeasurable  wrongs  on  the  heart  and  intellect 
of  man. 1  But  no  such  schemes  receive  any  sanction  from 
the  approval  or  practice  of  our  Lord.  He  has  but  one 
principle,  which  is  to  go  to  the  very  heart  of  the  central 
idea,  and  to  fill  it  with  the  large  liberality  of  love.  God  is 
righteous.  If  we  be  sons  of  God  we  must  hate  falsity  and 
injustice  and  all  cc lying  for  God”  with  a  perfect  hatred. 
God  is  a  Spirit.  If  we  be  in  living  communion  with  God 
we  must  not  only  believe  in  the  continuous  inspiration  of 
His  Spirit,  but  we  must  speak  with  tongues  and  must 
interpret.  God  is  Love.  We  shall  never  go  far  astray  in  the 
interpretation  of  Scripture  even  though  we  be  but  wayfaring 
men  and  fools,  if  we  strive  by  our  theology  to  regulate  our 
life,  and  to  sway  the  whole  movement  of  our  intellect  by  the 
spirit  which  Christ  manifested  and  by  the  Divine  example 
which  He  set;2— by  the  golden  rule  which  it  may  be  that  He 
clothed  in  these  very  words,  “  Never  be  joyful  save  when 
ye  look  upon  the  face  of  your  brother  in  love.” 3 

Potto  unum  necessaTium.  Let  me,  as  my  last  word,  leave 
with  you  the  hexameters  of  a  poet  of  the  fourth  century  : — 

“  Discussi  fateor  sectas  attentius  omnes, 

Plurima  quaesivi,  per  singula  quaeque  cucurri, 

Nec  quicquam  inveni  melius  quam  credere  Christo.”  4 


Out  upon  you  that  will  read  Scripture  only  to  copy  those  things  which 
are  held  out  to  us  as  warnings,  not  as  examples. ’’—Kenilworth.  Take  two 
instances  of  a,ge-long  crimes — persecution  and  slavery.  Of  persecution  sup- 
poited  by  Scripture  texts  I  have  said  enough.  For  slavery  one  quotation  out 
ot  thousands  may  suffice.  “From  its  inherent  nature,, said  Bishop  Hopkins 
0  eimont,  slavery  has  been  a  curse  and  blight  wherever  it  exists  :  vet  it  is 
warranted  by  the  Bible.  Therefore,  as  slavery  is  recognised  by  the  ' Bible, 
every  man  has  a  right  to  own  slaves,  provided  they  are  not  treated  with 
unnecessary  cruelty.” 

.  Quisquis  .  .  talem  inde  sententiam  duxerit  ut  .  .  aedificandae  caritati 
*  non  Pern*ci°se  fidlitur,  nec  ornnino  mentitur.”  Aug.  De  Doctr. 

tnrist.  ni. 

.  ^  nunquam,  inquit,  laeti  sitis,  nisi  quum  fratrem  vestrum  videritis  in 

cantate.  Quoted  by  Jerome  from  the  “Gospel  of  the  Hebrews.”  Jer.  in 
Lph.  v.  3. 

4  Antonius. 


437 


One  Thing  Needful. 

I  too  have  examined  many  sects ;  I  have  considered  many 
phases  of  teaching;  I  have  found  nothing  better  than  to 
believe  in  Christ.  We  may  differ  about  many  things,  and  the 
less  Christian  be  our  disposition  the  more  hitter  will  be  our 
religious  differences  ;  but  though  there  may  be  many  readers 
who  will  disagree  with  me  in  much  that  I  have  said,  I  trust 
that  they  will  all  agree  with  me,  heart  and  soul,  in  believing 
that  the  one  end  of  all  Scriptural  study,  the  one  object  of  all 
Christian  life,  the  one  thing  needful  to  be  desired  in  all  the 
world,  is  this :  to  find  Christ,  and  to  be  found  in  Him,  not 
having  a  righteousness  of  our  own,  even  that  which  is  of 
the  Law,  but  that  which  is  through  faith  in  Christ,  the 
righteousness  which  is  of  God  by  faith. 


NOTES. 


— 


NOTES. 


LECTURE  II. 


NOTE  I. 


SELF-GLORIFICATION  OF  THE  RABBIS. 

RashionDeut.  xvii.  11,  says,  “The  Rabbis  are  to  be  believed  even 
when  they  say  that  right  is  left,  and  left  is  right.” 

“He  *at  <lllarrels  with  his  Rabbi  quarrels  as  it  were  with  the 
Shekmah.”  See  Sanhedrin,  f.  110,  1 ;  Num.  xxvi.  9. 

“  The  curse  of  a  Rabbi  comes  to  pass  even  when  it  is  without  cause  ” 
Sanhedrin,  f.  20,  2  (  a  flat  contradiction  of  Prov.  xxvi.  2). 

ir'lf  V6,n  the  condlUonal  curse  of  a  Rabbi  is  certain  to  come  to  pass  ” 
Makkoth,  f.  Ill,  1.  r  * 

“When  the  Rabbis  look  at  a  man  in  displeasure,  he  dies  or  becomes 
poor.”  Chagiga,  f.  5,  6. 

“  A  Rabbi  is  greater  than  a  prophet.” 

man  should  respect  his  Rabbi  more  than  his  father.” 

“At  the  death  of  Rabbi,  meekness  and  fear  of  sin  were  at  an  end. 
bay  not  meekness,’  exclaimed  Rav  Joseph,  ‘for  I  am  still  here.’  ‘  Say 

not  fear  of  sin,’  exclaimed  Ray  Nachman,  ‘  for  I  am  still  here.’  ’’  Sota, 
i.  49,  2. 

The  Rabbis,  like  the  Schoolmen,  rejoiced  in  bestowing  pompous 
titles  upon  each  other,  such  as  : 


Hillel  the  Nasi. 

R.  J ohanan  ben  Zakkai. 
R.  Meir. 


“  The  Modest,  the  Patient,  the  Elder 
the  Great.” 

“  Upright  Pillar,”  or  “  Mighty  Ham¬ 
mer.”  1 

“The  Brilliant”  (Meir) 2  and  “Baal 
nes ,  Lord  of  Wonders.” 


*  Berakhoth,  f.  28,  2. 

2  His  real  name  was  Nehoraii.  ’Erubin,  f.  13,  2. 


442 


Notes. 


E.  Eleazar  ben  Hyrkanos. 
E.  Jndah. 

E.  Tarpbon. 

E.  Isbmael. 

E.  Aqiba. 

E,  Eliezer  ben  Jacob. 

E.  Jose. 

E.  Jobanan  ben  Nuri. 
Eabbab. 

E,  Jose  the  Galilean. 

E.  Eleazar  ben  Arak. 

E.  Joseph. 

E.  Joshua  ben  Chananiah. 


“  A  closed  cistern.” 

“  The  Holy,  the  Prince,  Our  Eabbi.” 
“A  pile  of  nuts.” 

“  A  handy  store.” 

“  A  well-stocked  storehouse.” 

“  A  Kab ,  but  clean.” 

“  Always  ready.” 
u  A  heap  of  Halakhoth.” 

“  Eooter  up  of  mountains.”  1 
“  A  beautiful  compiler.” 2 
“  A  welling  spring.” 

“  Sinai.” 

“  The  light  of  the  world.”  3 


NOTE  II. 

THE  TARGUMS  AND  MIDRASHIM, 

The  word  Targum  is  of  uncertain  derivation,  and  is  used  for  the 
Aramaic  versions  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  first  trace  of  such  a  ver¬ 
nacular  (oral)  rendering  is  in  Heb.  viii.  8,  where  the  word  Mepkorash 
(A.  V.  “  distinctly  ”)  is  in  the  Talmud  (Megilla,  3,  1  ;  Nedanm,  37,  2) 
explained  to  mean  “  with  a  Targum.”  In  Sanhedrin,  f.  212,  we  are  told 
that  Ezra  introduced  the  Targum,  and  the  square  character  of  the 

Hebrew  letters.  . 

The  chief  Targums  are  those  of  Onqelos,  Jonathan  Ben  Uzziel, 

Pseudo- Jonathan  and  the  Targum  Jerushalmi.  Full  accounts  of  them 
will  be  found  in  Deutsch’s  Remains ,  pp.  319-403.  Wogue,  Hist,  de  la 
Bible ,  pp.  145-157  ;  and  Weber,  Alt.-Synag.  Theologie ,  vm.-xix. 


THE  MIDRASH. 

Jewish  literature  is,  1.  Balahhie  and  Haggadie  :  the  Mishna ;  the 
Talmuds 

2.  Expository  in  a  wider  sense  :  theMidrashim  and  (incidentally)  the 
Targums. 

3.  Massoretic ,  the  great  and  little  Massora. 


1  Berakhoth,  f.  64,  1  ;  Horaioth,  f.  14,  1.  ,.  -p,  ••• 

2  B.  Tarphon  also  called  him  “the  horned  ram,  and  applied  Dan.  vm. 
3-7  to  him,  from  his  skill  in  rebutting  the  arguments  of  B.  Aqiba.  inese 
and  other  titles  are  given  in  Gittin,  f.  67,  1,  and  the  Aboth  of  .  a  an, 

xviii.  I  am  indebted  for  these  references  to  Mr.  P.  J.  per?”.on;,  ,  ,, 

3  Aboth,  ii.  10,  “Happy  is  she  that  bare  him.”  The  title  Lux  mundi 

was  given  in  the  Middle  Ages  to  John  Wessel. 


Notes. 


44.3 


4“’  Chananiah’  TLe  B°0kS  °f  MaCCabees- 

5.  Philosophic  (Alexandrian). 

The  Midrash  of  the  schools  was  mainly  Halakhic  ;  that  of  the  syni 
gogues  mostly  Haggadic.  yna" 

The  word  “  Midrash  ”  first  occurs  in  2  Chron.  xiii.  22  •  “the  Midrash 

Kings'  ^  Wd0’”  24 !  MM  the  “f 

The  epochs  of  the  Midrashim  are  three. 

1.  Its  development  from  b.c.  30-a.d.  400.  From  Hillel  to 

Gamaliel  V. 

2.  Its  collection  from  a.d.  400-750.  From  Gamaliel  V.  to  R.  Anan 

the  Karaite. 

*■  x -  -■  4-» 

»'  •■>« »» 

i.  Nothing  in  Scripture  is  indifferent  or  accidental 

49|  andlmefor  “ 

is  pTredoCmtfam;draShim  ^  ^  eP°dl  ^  ^  Halahha 

1.  Mekhilta.  (“Tenor”)  An  Halakhic  commentary  on  parts  of  Exodus 

based  on  the  methods  of  R.  Aqiba. 

2.  Siphra  (  The  Book”)  or  Toratli  Kohanim ,  on  Leviticus.  It  origi¬ 

nated  m  the  school  of  Rab  in  Sara  (2*1  '2*7 

3.  Siphn  (“Books  ”)  on  Numbers  and  Deuteronomy. 

foLS  Wa8  greatly  devel0ped’  and  the 

4'  "bydRab.  Kaha^f ^  Lw  “d  tbe  ^ophets 

5'  “cfntov E tba  :  •?  1  tte  °atmae  C°UeCted  in  the  thirteenth 
century,  it  consists  of 

Bereshith  Rabba,  on  Genesis.  * 

Shemoth  Rabba,  on  Exodus. 

Vajikra  Rabba,  on  Leviticus. 

Bamidbar  Rabba,  on  Numbers. 

Debarim  Rabba,  on  Deuteronomy 

1  This  is  the  best  and  oldest.  It  is  Palestinian  of  the  6th  centnrv  It 
resembles,  and  quotes  the  Jerusalem  Gemara.  century,  it 


Notes. 


444 

and  of  the  five  Megilloth  (“  Rolls  ”). 

Schir  Rabba  on  Canticles. 

Midrash  Ruth. 

„  Esther. 

„  Koheleth. 

Echa  Rabbathi  on  Lamentations. 

6.  Tanchuma ;  on  the  Pentateuch.  It  is  sometimes  called  Yelamdenu 

from  its  formula,  “  Our  Rabbis  have  taught  us.” 1 

During  the  third  epoch  the  Halakha  became  absolutely  lifeless,  and 
R.  Anan  the  Karaite  demanded  a  return  to  the  natural  and  rational 
method  of  interpreting  Scripture  :  but  Haggadic  catenae  continued_to 
be  produced. 

7.  Jalqut  Shimeoni  ;  on  the  Old  Testament.  This  was  drawn  up  by 

R.  Simeon  in  the  thirteenth  century,  and  resembles  the  Patristic 
catenae. 

8.  Jalqut  Chadash.  It  was  compiled  out  of  the  Book  Zohar  in  the 

Middle  Ages. 

Halakhic  traditions  outside  the  Mishna  are  called  “  extraneous  ” 
( Boraitoth 2),  and  are  collected  in  the  Tosephta.3  The  additions  to  the 
Mishna  are  called  Tosephtoth ;  those  to  the  Gemara  are  called  Tosaphoth. 


NOTE  III. 

RABBI  JOHANAN  BEN  ZAKKAI. 

It  was  the  happy  method  of  R.  Johanan  to  propose  a  subject  for  dis¬ 
cussion,  to  listen  to  the  opinions  given  by  all  his  associates,  and  finally 
to  give  his  own  judgment.  Thus  on  one  occasion  he  told  his  disciples 
to  consider  “  which  was  the  good  way  in  which  men  should  walk. ”  They 
defended  their  several  views  as  follows  : 

R.  Eliezer.  He  should  have  a  kindly  eye. 

R.  Joshua.  He  should  gain  a  sure  friend. 

R.  Jose.  He  should  strive  to  win  a  good  neighbour. 

R.  Simon.  He  should  always  consider  the  consequences. 

R.  Eleazar.  He  should  have  a  good  heart. 

1  pnn  _ 

2  Raria,  “exterior.” 

3  Prom  yasaph,  “to  add.”  The  Tosephta  was  drawn  up  bv  R.  Chija  bar 
Abba,  a  Tanaite,  who  also  drew  up  a  collection  of  Boraitoth. 


Notes. 


445 


Jt.  Johanau  summed  up  the  discussion  by  saying,  “The  best  answer 
lias  been  given  by  R.  Eleazar,  for  the  blessine  which  he  i  l I 

comprises  all  the  others.”  S  he  has  melltloned 

wa^renSr  ‘‘RiZl  ^  diSCUSsion  PrOT'  xiv'  H  which 

of  nations  is  sin.”  °  0usne'ss  exalteth  a  natlon>  hut  the  mercy  pDm) 

lsraei>  but  any  go°d  d-ds 

R.  Joshua.  (To  the  same  effect  with  different  proofs  ) 

w?rc2rf  e7z  (!ho  was  stui  a  disdpie)-  (t°  the  same 

with  Other  proofs,  and  an  expression  of  uncertainty.) 

M.  Eliezer.  (Still  the  same,  with  fresh  proofs.) 

iSX,2,“"u“"  ““  I“l  ta*  - 

Kj-r;sn.!£~rr;“ y  »'  *- 

34T3^  -tm  fTd  at  aeast  the  kindness  of  his  W  (comp.  Acts  x 
34,  35) ,  but  he  afterwards  accepted  R.  Nechunjah’s  in  preference  * 

.  SPecimens  of  the  admirable  sayings  and  parables  nf  T?  pr 

given  by  Low  (PraHische  Einleitung,  95,  103)P  ‘  '  leZCT  are 


NOTE  IV. 

further  instances  of  execetic  and  symbolic  kabbalism. 

1.  Gematria. 

Is.  xxx.  8  “  Blessed  are  all  those  that  wait  upon  Him  ”  (£). 

a.  Ue  °  ls  ,36>  so  ^haii  said  that  there  are  36  in  everv 
g  ^ration  who  receive  the  presence  of  the  Shekhinah.  Sanhedrin, 

ii  n  T'  h  To8  is„made  a  Prophecy  of  Habakkuk  (comp  Hab 

n “ = H*“"k  - 

Gen.  xl  1.  All  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth  were  of  one  lan 
guage.  Here  fin*  =  409,  and  is  equivalent  to  'Bhpr,  =  409 

1  WllenCe  14  was  assumed  ‘hat  Hebrew  was  the  primeval  tongue. 

sense  Sehultens  and  Grotius  practically  a^ree  witW^T  ^  takin?  ln  this 

verse  mean  “  piety  is  an  atonement  fo?  the  peopfe  ”  °  B^t  ^ 

oveiSos  by  the  LXX.  in  Lev  w  M  (\  v  <<  p  P  .  Put  IDn  is  rendered 

ful  thing”).  Kalisch  thinks  that  if  n- V  th-  un^°  “ess  >  R.V,  “a  shame- 

2  Baba  Bathm  f!  10  2  gets  ‘hlS  sense  ^  « ntiphrasU. 


446 


Notes. 


Gen.  xviii.  2.  “  And  lo  !  these  men  ”  =  by  Gematria,  “  These 

are  Michael,  Gabriel,  and  Raphael.” 

Jacob’s  ladder  (D^D)  is  identified  with  Sinai  because  both 

words  =  130.  . 

Gen.  xlii.  2.  “  Go  down  ”  (1“H)  =  210,  therefore  the  Egyptian 

bondage  was  to  last  210  years.  .  „ 

Lev.  xvi.  3.  “  Thus  shall  Aaron  come  into  the  Holy  Place. 

nxt2,'  “thus,”  =  410  =  2  +  7  +  1  +  400,  therefore  the  first 

temple  was  to  last  410  years.  ?J 

Dent,  xxxiii.  27.  God  is  often  described  as  “the  Place ^ 

(magoni),  because  maqom  =  186,  and  Jehovah  10  +5  4-  6  +  5 
On  the  tomb  of  Emmanuel  Deutsch  in  the  Jewish  cemetery  at 
Alexandria,  the  Hebrew  inscription,  written  by  Dr.  Hermann 
Adler,  says  that  he  “  died  in  the  year  £  Arise,  shine,  for  thy  light  is 
come'  ”  It  is  a  sort  of  chronogram.  The  text  quoted  gives  the 
number  1873,  the  year  in  which  the  brilliant  scholar  died. 

For  other  instances  see  Buxtorf,  Lex.  Chald.  s.v.  K'HDDJ  ;  Bud- 
deus,  Philos.  Ebr.  p.  323. 

2.  Notarilcon. 

Each  letter  of  the  Words  “a  father  of  many  nations  have  I  made 
thee  ”  is  made  significant.  Shabbath,  f.  105,  1. 

From  Gen.  xxxvii.  3  it  is  inferred  that  the  “  coat  of  many 
colours”  was  the  source  of  all  Joseph’s  troubles,  because  the  letters 
of  DDB  stand  for  the  initials  of  the  Hebrew  words  for  “  Potiphar, 

merchants,  Ishmaelites,  Midianites. 

Deut.  xxx.  12,  “Who  will  go  up  for  us  1  ”  In  the  Hebrew  the 
initials  of  these  words  give  rte,  “  circumcision,”  and  the  final 
letters  niIT>,  ‘‘Jehovah.”  Hence  it  is  inferred  that  circumcision  is 
the  way  to  Heaven.  (See  further  Ginsburg,  The  Kabbalah,  pp. 
12,  50  ;  Eccles.  p.  30.) 

3.  Inf erences  from  changing  the  reading. 

(“  Read  not  so  but  so.”)  p  p  'Hpn  N. 

Gen.  xxv.  23.  “Two  nations  are  in  thy  womb.”  Read  not  D'U, 
“nations,”  but  “men”  (as  the  Massora  reads).  The  two 

men  are  Rabbi  (Judah  the  Holy),  the  compiler  of  the  Mishna,  and 

his  friend  Antoninus  the  Emperor. 

Deut  xxxiii.  4.  “  Moses  commanded  us  a  law,  the  inheritance 

of  the  'congregation  of  Jacob.”  Read  not  WHO,  “  inheritance,” 
but  nDUNO,  “espoused,”  which  shows  that  the  Law  is  as  a  bride. 
Pesachim,  f.  42,  2. 

Gen.  xlix.  22.  “Joseph  is  ...  a  fruitful  hough  by  a  well.” 
Read  not  ]'V  'bv,  “by  a  well,”  but  )'V  W,  “above  the  eye” 


Notes. 


447 


a 


?5 


Which  Shows  that  Joseph  and  his  descendants  are  not  affected  by 
the  evil  eye.  Berakhoth,  f.  55,  2.  ' 

Jf-  L  f  y  bread  llP°n  the  waters,  and  thou  shalt 

but  2  Read  n0t  D'fn  ““P°»  ‘he  waters,” 

stories  of  R  A  1  >  *“  “f  water- ’  (Thls  was  illustrated  by 
s  ones  of  R.  Aqiba’s  escape  from  shipwreck.)  Aboth  of  R.  Nathan 

Cll.  111.  1 

Ex.  xxxii.  Iff  “Graven  upon  the  tables.”  Read  not  min 

graven  ’  but  nnn,  “  freedom  ;  ”  for  only  students  of  the  law  a"’ 
free.  Aboth,  ch.  yi. 

e"1  ”*■  “  * 

AYadaim  iil  the  first  cbaPter  of  Canticles  is  explained 

explanation  tf’  “  “  Shabbath>  f-  88>  2,  by  other  Rabbis  The 
planatron  turns  on  incessant  changes  of  words.  (See  Dr.  Gins- 
bnrg,  Song  of  Songs,  p.  28.) 

4.  Importance  attached  to  letters. 

CM  15'  The  name  of  Jehovah  “ust  not  be  altered  because 

sst of  the  the  ™ld  **  •-"“/oi 

fi  —  *-  «• 

feed'not  b”  fl12\  ^  ^ iS  dotted  to  show  tbat  they  meant  to 

feed  not  the  flock  but  themselves.  Aboth  of  R.  Nathan,  34. 

o.  Inferences  from  the  repetition  of  words. 

A  Sadducee  once  said  to  Rabbi  Iddith,  “It  is  written  (Ex  xxiv 

b  "I  pG°d  Unt°  M°SeS’  °0me  UP lmt0  the  Lord.’  Should  it 
not  be  Come  up  unto  Me  >  ?  ”  “  No,”  said  the  Rabbi  «  Metatoon 
ere  calledby  the  name  of  the  Lord.”  Sanhedrin,  f.  38  2 
The  child  of  R.  Simeon  ben  Lakish  asked  Rabbi  why  the  verl 
was  repeated  in  ‘Tithing  thou  shalt  tithe ’  (Dent.  xiv.  22  Tb 

1  of  |  H  6ald-  “  that  thou  niayest  become  rich  ”  (  y  has 

both  meanings).  Taanith,  f.  9,  1.  [  1 

Lorcfis'called^”  “Nan  A>7  UP0”  W  46  the  name  °f  the 
•  Name  is  repeated  to  show  that  the  broken  tables 

also  were  deposited  in  the  Ark.  Baba  Bathra,  f.  14,  2. 


448 


Notes . 


Gen.  xix.  24.  “  The  Lord  rained  .  .  .  fire  from  the  Lord.  A 

Saddncee  remarked  that  it  should  be  “  from  Himself.”  .  A  washer¬ 
man  who  was  present,  obtaining  leave  to  answer  him,  referre 
to  Gen.  iv.  23  ;  Lamech  said,  “  Hear  my  voice,  ye  wives  of  Lamech 
Sanhedrin,  f.  38,  2.  The  perfectly  sensible  remark  that  it  was  only 
a  peculiarity  of  speech  was  given  by  R.  Meir  ;  yet  this  ‘ext  is  used 
by  Fathers  and  Schoolmen  to  prove  the  Divinity  of  Christ. 

6.  Inf erences  from  impersonal  verbs. 

Esth  vi  1  “And  he  commanded  to  bring  the  books  of  the 
chronicles,’  and  they  were  read. ”  It  means  they  were  read  of  them¬ 
selves  (by  no  visible  agent).  “  And  it  was  found  written.  It  means 
that  Shimsai  (i  Ezra  iv.  8)  kept  erasing  the  words,  and  Gabriel 
wrote  them  afresh.  Megilla,  f.  15,  2. 


7.  Inferences  from  Plurals. 

Ex.  xxiv.  6.  “  Long-sufferings.” 

it  extends  both  to  the  righteous 


Why  in  the  plural  1  Because 
and  to  the  wicked.  ’Erubin, 


f  22  1. 

Gen.  xlv.  16.  “  Benjamin’s  necks.”  Had  Benjamin  two  necks  1 

No,  he  wept  for  the  destruction  of  the  two  Temples.  Megilla, 

f  10  2 

*  Gen.  "iv.  10.  “  Thy  brother’s  bloods .”  It  means  that  his  blood  was 

scattered  on  trees  and  stones.  Sanhedrin,  f.  37,  1. 

Dan  vii  9  “  The  thrones  were  placed.”  R.  J ose.  One  throne 

for  justice,' one  for  mercy.”  R.  Eleazar.  “  One  for  a  throne,  the 

other  for  a  footstool.”  R.  Acpiba.  “  One  for  Himself,  one  for  the 
Messiah.”  Sanhedrin,  f.  38,  2. 


8.  Miscellaneous. 

Gen  xiv  3  As  a  reward  for  refusing  a  thread  and  a  shoe- 
latchet  which  were  not  his,  Abraham’s  children  received  two 
profitable  commandments,  to  have  a  sky-blue  thread  m  the  fringes, 
and  a  leathern  strap  to  the  phylacteries.  .  Sota,  f.  17, 1. 

Gen  xix.  2.  “  The  cry  of  Sodom  is  great.”  Since  n2  i  m 

Talmudic  Hebrew  also  means  “a  girl,”  they  had  a  story  of  a 
girl  in  Sodom  who  for  giving  a  piece  of  bread  to  a  poor  man  was 
smeared  with  honey  and  stung  to  death  by  bees.  Sanhedrin, 

Rabbi  Jehudah  says,  “  He  that  renders  a  verse  literally  says  what 
is  not  true  ;  and  he  who  adds  to  it  is  a  blasphemer,  Qiddushin,  .  49, 
1.  (Rashi  adds  that  the  additions  in  the  Targums  of  Onqelos  were 

derived  from  Moses.) 

Cant.  viii.  10.  “  I  am  a  wall,”  i.e.  the  Law  ;  ‘£  and  my  breasts 

like  towers,”  i.e.  the  Pupils  of  the  Wise.  Baba  Bathra,  f.  8,  1. 


Notes. 


449 


NOTE  y. 


THE  KARAITES. 

The  Karaites-whom  I  have  called  the  Protestants  of  Judaism- date 
.heir  distinct  position  from  the  days  of  the  Khalif  Almanzor  (753-774) 

/“8t  “  tlle  Mohammedan  Schiites  reject,  and  the  Sunnites 
accept,  tradition  apart  from  the  Koran,  so  the  Karaites  reject  the 
tradition  of  the  Rabbimsts,  and  acknowledge  only  the  authority  of 
cripture  (Bern  Mikra).  A  learned  Karaite  in  the  fifteenth  century, 
Kaleb  Afendopulo,  says  that  the  Karaites  differed  from  Talmudists  • 

.  n  rejecting  the  oral  law.  2.  In  rejecting  traditional  exegesis,  and 
maintaining  (like  the  Reformers)  the  “  perspicuity  ”  of  Scripture  3 
In  denying  all  right  to  add  to,  or  take  from,  the  Law. 

,  7e  a  JeTiSh  period!cal  that  a  Jewish  boy  once  asked  his 

father,  Who  are  the  Karaites  ?”  The  answer  was,  “  They  are  Jews 

who  eat  chickens  fried  in  butter.”  The  boy  immediately  (according  to 
the  common  Jewish  form  of  execration)  spat  on  the  ground  and  said 
May  their  name  and  memorial  be  blotted  out.” 1  The  meaning  was 
that  they  violate  the  law,  “  Thou  shalt  not  seethe  a  kid  in  its  mother’s 

milk,,  because  they  reject  the  preposterous  extensions  given  by  the 
Rabbis  to  that  precept.  ^ 

The  founder  of  the  Karaites  was  Anan  ben  David  Abba ,*  who  beinv 

excluded  from  the  position  of  Gaon,  went  to  Jerusalem  with  his  son 

friends,  and  followers,  and  developed  his  opinions  undisturbed  He 

shook  off  the  yoke  of  Rabbinism  and  tradition,  and  proclaimed  the 

right  of  private  judgment.  He  is  still  commemorated  by  the  Karaites 

m  their  mention  of  the  dead,  as  one  who  opened  for  them  the  gates  of 
the  Law.  ° 

The  Karaites  claim,  however,  a  much  higher  antiquity  though  not  as  a 
separate  sect.  In  a  Karaite  book  published  in  1834,  and  quoted  in  the 
Jewish  World  (Jan.  27,  1882),  we  read,  “The  Jews  murdered  the  good 
Jesus,  the  son  of  Miriam,  because  he  was  a  Karaite,  and  because  he 
opposed  the  Mishna,  as  his  Karaite  ancestors  had  always  done.,;  3 

The  influence  of  the  Karaites  told  strongly  even  on  the  Rabbinists 
and  led  to  the  development  of  the  Massora.  Their  determination  to 

*  SeeeMunk!  mZgJs,  p.77" Worf  «"•  “Jesus.' 

See  Matt.  xv.  6  :  Mark  vii.  13  •  John  v  t,  .  T  .  , 

Jeremiah  certainly  express  Karaite  Views  (Is.  iii.  12-  viiT^O  * 

10-12,  &c.  Jer.  ii.  13  :  viii.  12  •  xviii  8-23  Aro  \  vZ'  V  '  1X ‘  16  ;  lvi- 
in  the  Mishna,  MegiUa,  f.  24,  2.  '  ^  &  ^  Kaiaites  are  mentioned 


G  G 


450 


Notes. 


abide  by  the  literal  sense  gave  an  impulse  to  Hebrew  philology,  winch 
was  peculiarly  difficult  when  there  was  neither  grammar  nor  lexicon  in 
existence. 

The  Karaites  claim  the  right  to  constant  progress  without  regarding 
themselves  as  unfaithful  to  their  earlier  teachers. 

They  have  eight  exegetical  rules  drawn  up  by  Abu  Jakub  el  Bazir. 


NOTE  VI. 

THE  MASSORA. 

The  word  Massora  is  derived  from  Masar,  “to  deliver,”  and  in  its 
original  sense  the  word  means  the  traditional  writing  of  the  Biblical 
text  of  the  Sopherim  which  R.  Aqiba  regarded  as  “  a  hedge  round  the 
law.” 

The  necessity  for  the  collection  and  preservation  of  the  old  textual 
traditions  began  with  the  decay  of  J ewish  learning  after  the  sixth  century. 
The  most  important  part  of  this  task  was  the  system  of  punctuation  and 
vocalisation.  The  origin  of  the  Keri  (“  read  ”)  and  Kethib  (“  written  ”)  is 
attributed  to  the  Sopherim  (see  Wogue,  Hist,  de  la  Bible ,  pp.  110-127) 
and  the  Massoretic  material  must  have  early  existed,  for  the  germs  of  it 
are  alluded  to  even  in  the  Mishna. 

After  the  eighth  century  the  word  is  used  in  a  narrower  sense  to 
describe  the  knowledge  of  the  words,  letters,  verses,  vowels  and  points 
of  the  text.  The  Massorets  counted  the  number  of  verses  in  each  book, 
how  many  began  and  ended  in  the  same  way,  how  many  times  a  word 
occurred  in  the  Bible  or  in  a  particular  book.  Many  of  these  results 
are  preserved  in  Elias  Levita.  The  Hebrew  Bible  (if  any  one  cares  to 
know)  contains  815,280  letters. 

The  Massora  was  grammatic,  lexical,  and  exegetic.  The  exegetic  re¬ 
marks,  constituting  the  great  and  the  little  Massora,  are  written  in  the 
margin.  The  Massora  was  completed  in  the  ninth  century  by  Aron  ben 
Asher,  and  Moseh  ben  David  ben  Naphthali,  who  laboured  specially  on 
the  text. 

Before  the  invention  of  printing  the  Bibles  were  written  by  scribes, 
“punctators”  who  added  the  vowel  points  andaccents,  and  cor¬ 

rectors  (DTVOQ)  who  revised  the  whole.  One  of  the  most  celebrated  of 
these  scribes  was  Samson  the  Nakdan,  who  wrote  a  book  on  the  subject 
in  the  thirteenth  century. 

The  Bible  was  early  divided  into  Lessons  from  the  Law  (nf&JHQ)  and 
from  the  Prophets  (nnD&n).  Rabbi  Isaak  Nathan  in  the  fifteenth  century 


451 


Notes. 


"'see  themSeIve90f  Hu8° 

PP-  n5-il“8Md^,^iyDr1’'^,’itr“t  Uw’  PrakHscheEinleilunff, 
Ha  Massoreth  hy 


NOTE  VII. 

TALMUDIC  CRYPTOGRAPHS. 

on  this  suSSle  E^ositorlT &  *“  “7  pap6r 

instances  are  given.  '  5  Where  several  ver7  important 

Talmudic  writingfboth  feYOurri.leLTunf  °f  6Stimates  of 

writers,  mediaeval  and  modern.  &  faV0llrabIe  drawn  from  many 


G  G  2 


LECTURE  III. 


NOTE  I. 

PHILO’S  USE  OF  THE  SEPTUAGINT. 

Siegfried,  in  three  papers  contributed  to  Hilgenf eld’s  Zeitschrift  for 
1873  has  carefully  examined  Philo’s  use  of  the  Septuagint.  He  finds 

from  classifying  Philo’s  quotations, 

1.  That  he  often  cites  from  memory  and  parenthetically. 

2.  That  he  often  mixes  up  his  quotations  with  remarks  of  his  own. 

3.  That  he  sometimes  varies  the  terms  of  the  same  quotation. 

4.  That  some  of  his  professed  quotations  are  no  longer  extant  in  any 

MSS. 

5.  That  they  occasionally  represent  more  accurately  the  meaning  of 
the  Hebrew. 

6.  That  they  sometimes  show  traces  of  a  different  Hebrew  text. 

7.  That  they  sometimes  do  not  occur  at  all  in  our  text. 

That  two  quotations  are  sometimes  mingled. 

See  too  Gfrorer,  Philo,  i.  51  ;  Dahne,  ii.  2  sq. 

Similar  phenomena  appear  both  in  the  quotations  made  from  the  Old 
Testament  in  the  New,  and  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers. 


NOTE  II. 

THE  EXEGETICAL  PRINCIPLES  OF  JOSEPHUS. 

Although  Josephus  is  primarily  a  historian,  it  was  impossible  for  him 
to  write  a  history  of  his  people  without  giving  many  indications  of  the 
methods  of  interpretation  which  he  adopted,  and  those  methods  were 
chiefly  Palestinian.  Nearly  all  that  he  has  in  common  with  Philo  is 
the  strong  desire  to  narrate  the  Bible  histories  in  such  a  manner  as  to 


Notes . 


453 


strd  r£rs  Gentiie  readers>  and  s° as  ieast  to  ^ir 

recordf^But8  ^  °f  bein§  Perfec%  to  the  written 

1.  adopts  allegorical  explanations-as  in  his  account  of  the 
Tabernacle.  He  says  that  two  parts  of  it  represented  the  land 
and  sea  which  are  open  to  all  men ;  the  third  part  symbolised 
Heaven  which  is  reserved  for  God.  The  twehufloaves  of 
siew bread  represent  the  twelve  months;  the  candlestick  was 
composed  of  seventy  pieces  to  indicate  the  constellations  -  the 
seven  branches  indicated  sun,  moon,  and  planets,  &c. 
bee  Antt.,  Proem.  §  4  ;  i.  7,  §  1  ;  iii.  11,  §  H 

2'  in  MS  of  Graham  he 

^aj  s  that  the  Patriarch  taught  Astrology,  Arithmetic,  &c„  to  the 

ojptians  from  whom  the  Greeks  learnt  those  sciences  ;  and  he 

has  many  remarkable  legends  about  the  youth  of  Moses  &c 

3.  He  imitates  the  Greeks  in  putting  speeches  into  the  mouth  of 
Moses,  &c.  (as  Philo  also  does). 

4.  He  adopts  as  often  as  possible  a  natural  explanation  of  supernatural 
narratives  as  in  his  account  of  the  Manna,  the  Passage  0“ '  h 

rra jordan>  tte — °f  - 

0.  Like  the  Rabbis,  he  is  fond  of  introducing  proverbs,  such  as 

,t !  18  tbe  daugbter  of  obstinacy  and  thoughtlessness  » 

&c  he  m»bis  always  changeable,”  “  Envy  waits  on  Prosperity’” 

°f  fte  Greek  Philosophers, 
see  Antt.  vi.  11,  §  8  ;  vm.  4,  §  2  ;  c.  Ap.  ii.  39. 

On  the  whole  we  must  regard  Josephus  as  presenting  a  stranue 
mix  ure  of  Rabbinic,  Pharisaic,  and  Rationalistic  notions.  He  wfs 
w  holly  "-anting  m  the  religious  earnestness  of  Philo. 


6. 


JLMUJLii,  ill. 


THE  SEPTUAGINT  VERSION. 

A  translator  may  either  offer  a  free  paraphrase,  or  may  adhere  to  the 
original  with  slavish  accuracy  ;  or  may  steer  a  middle  course  between 
these  extremes.  Many  of  the  LXX.  translators  adopted  the  first  view  of 
t  e.r  duty ;  Aquila  the  second ;  Theodotion  and  Symmachus  the 


454 


Notes. 


i.  The  Seventy  sometimes  omit.  The  omission  in  some  MSS.  of  1  Sam. 

xvii.  12-31,  and  55-58  is  due  to  the  desire  to  avoid  a  contradiction. 
The  omission  of  Ex.  xxxii.  9  is  due  to  the  same  national  vanity 
which  led  them  to  alter  “set  on  mischief”  into  “impetuous”  in 
Ex.  xxxii.  22. 

ii.  They  make  Halakhic  additions,  as  in  Gen.  ix.  4  ;  Ex.  xii.  15,  18  ; 

xiii  16  ( dcraXeura )  ;  xxii.  9  ;  Lev.  xix.  19  ;  xxiv.  7  ;  Deut.  xxvi.  12, 
&c.  See  Franker,  Vorstudien,  pp.  86-92. 

iii.  They  add  Haggadistic  particulars,  as  in  Gen.  ii.  2  ;  iv.  4  ;  Ex.  xiii. 

18  ;  Num.  xxxii.  12  ;  Deut.  xxxii.  8  ;  Josh.  xiii.  22  ;  xxiv.  30  ; 
1  Sam.  v.  4,  5,  10  ;  xvii.  39-43  ;  xix.  13-16  ;  xx.  30  ;  xxi.  13 ; 
Eccl.  xi.  9  ;  xii.  9,  &c. 

iv.  They  explain  and  modify  so  as  to  get  rid  of  anything  which  savoured 

of  difficulty  or  unorthodoxy,  as  in  Ex.  ii.  1  ;  iv.  6  ;  vi.  12,  20  ;  xii. 
40 ;  1  Sam.  xvi.  12 ;  xx.  30  ;  Eccl.  ii.  15,  17  ;  xi.  9,  &c. 

v.  They  soften  down  Anthropomorphic  and  Anthropopathic  expressions, 

as  in  Gen.  xviii.  30  ;  Ex.  iii.  1  ;  iv.  16,  20,  24;  v.  3 ;  xv.  3  ;  xvii. 
16  ;  xix.  13  ;  xxiv.  10,  11  ;  xxv.  8. 

vi.  As  for  their  positive  mistakes,  they  arose  : 

a.  From  the  use  of  an  unpunctuated  text,  as  in  Hos.  vi.  5,  Ps. 
cvi.  7. 

/3.  From  the  non-existence  of  vowel-points,  as  in 

1  Sam.  xiv.  45  ;  1  Chron.  xix.  6  ;  Ps.  lxxxvii.  4,  &c.,  where 
they  confuse  im  “with  ”  and  am  “people.” 

1  Sam.  ii.  16  ;  viii.  19  ;  x.  19,  &c.,  confusions  of  ^  and  <j^. 
y.  From  confusion  of  letters,  e.g.  “7  with  "1  or  vice  versa ,  as  in 

1  Sam.  ix.  25  ;  Is.  xxix.  3  ;  comp.  1  Sam.  xvii.  8  ;  xxxi.  3. 
Some  of  these  changes  may  be  due  to  intentional  anagram 
&c.  See  Eccl.  i.  18  ;  ii.  3  ;  viii.  6. 

5.  From  ignorance  of  proper  names,  as  in 
Gen.  xxii.  13  ;  Is.  vii.  3,  &c. 
e.  From  not  understanding  difficult  words,  as  in 

1  Sam.  xv.  32  ;  xvi.  20  ;  xvii.  20  ;  xxvi.  5  ;  Ruth  iv.  1  ;  2 
Kings  vi.  8.1 

Aquilas  version  (a.d.  150)  is  slavishly  literal,  and  was  spoken  of  as 
Kara  aicpifitiav  (Jer.  in  Ezek.  iii.  15).  The  LXX.  sometimes  render  HX 
by  aw  {e.g.  twenty-nine  times  in  Ecclesiastes  alone,  i.  14  ;  ii.  17,  &c.). 
Aquila,  in  deference  to  Aqiba’s  views,  always  did  so.  See  Jer.  Ed.  ad 
Pammach.  The  Talmud  praises  Aquila’s  version  (Shabbath,  8  ; 

■  I  have  remarked  on  some  of  these  errors  of  the  LXX.  in  the  version  of 
1  Samuel  in  the  first  vol.  of  the  Expositor,  pp.  104-119. 


Notes . 


455 


Yoma,  f.  41,  l).1  Theodotion’ 
by  the  obscurity  of  Aquila’s. 
telligible  and  perspicuous. 


s  version  seems  to  have  been  necessitated 
Symmachus’s  version  was  far  more  in- 


NOTE  IV. 

PHILO’S  PHRASES  for  the  literal  and  allegoric  senses. 
Philo  calls  the  literal  sense  : 
rci  prjTa.  De  Abrah.  §  38. 

to  prjrov,  ai  pijral  dieppjjpeuo-eis.  Quod  det.  pot.  §§6,  46. 

V  pyrrj  imo-KeyfsLs.  De  Agric.  §  30. 

vpvrf  Kcti  7rp6Xeipos  harass.  Quod  Dens  sit  immut .  §  28. 
at  7 TPoXtipoL  di Toddo-eis  <?/c  $avep~as  rS>v  v6pcov ypaffis. 

V  irpoxeipos  tudorf  rov  Xoyov.  De  Conf.  Ling.  p.  34. 

V  prjTTj  dirjyqcris.  De  Joseph.  §  6. 

Kvptcos.  De  Opif.  Mundi ,  §  54. 

h  pr)TTj  Kai  Javepa  anoboai*;.  De  Abrah.  §  36. 
ai  prjrdi  ypacpal.  id.  §  41. 

lie^Xlt1168  hiS  PllraSCS  betray  hiS  Str°ng  disHke  t0  ;  thus 

j?  Kara  tt/p  (ppdcnv  v^rjyopla.  Quod  det.  pot. 

V  (fravepa^  /cal  np'os  rovs  ttoXXovs  aTrodocns.  De  A  brah.  §  29. 

npos  robs  rijs  npayparelas  ao^o-ras  /cal  Xlap  ras  Upbs 

aveanaKOTas.  De  Somn.  i.  17. 

Of  the  allegorical  sense  he  speaks  as 

rop-uiv  iepuv  dXXrjyoplai,  ai  8i  vnoroiap  dnob oW.  De  Abrah.  §  18. 

De  Agric.  §  6. 

De  Cherub.  §  7. 

,  ,  De  Joseph.  §  6. 

aLVLTTeadaL  8i  vttopoiwp.  Quod  det.  pot. 

8ia  (Tvp[36X(ov.  Quod  Deus  sit  immut.  §  27. 

a-vp[3oXLKcbs.  De  Mund.  Opif.  §  54. 

rpoRLKai  dnodoaeis.  De  Conf.  Ling.  §  37. 

ra  epcpaipdpera  vorjpara.  Quod  det.  pot.  §  169. 

to.  pot] ra.  De  A  brah.  §  38. 

a  a  (o  par  a  Kai  yvgra  npdypara.  id.  §  41. 

1  11.  Joshua  b.  Chananiah  applied  Ps.  xlv.  3  to  Aquila.  Wogue,  p.  139. 


456 


Notes , 


ra  iv  vnovolats.  De  Joseph.  §  6. 

v  rpomKcorepa  dnobocns.  id.  §  22. 

f]  iv  aWgyopia  Oeropia.  J)e  A  bv&h.  §  25. 

t)  Trpos  biavoiav  iTncrrgpg  (jnXopadgs.  De  Spec.  Legg.  p.  191 

rj  iv  a.7roKpv(f)co  /cal  7 vpos  oXtyovs  aTvobocris.  De  Abrah.  §  29. 

How  complete  in  Philo’s  opinion  was  the  superiority  of  this  allegoric 
sense  is  seen  in  the  fact  that  he  calls  it  opariKois  (piXg  avbpdaiv,  De 
Plantat.  §  9.  He  says  that  it  is  obscure  to  the  many,  but  is  the  sense 
held  by  the  initiated  ( pvrrrai )  and  gv  oi  ra  vogra  Tvpo  rd>v  aicrOgriov 
anobexop^^oL  k at  opav  hvvdpevoi  yvropl^ovcrLV,  De  Abrah.  §  36.  He  calls 
Allegory  “  the  wise  architect,”  De  Somn.  ii.  §  2.  In  his  view  allegory 
was  g  tv pos  to  aXg6is  eTvivevovcra  68os,  and  literalism  only  g  ivpo9  ras 
i '(odearepcov  do^as. 

Arbitrary  as  was  Philo’s  method,  it  still  was  a  method.  It  had  its 
own  rules  ( Kavoves  rgs  dXXgyoplas ,  De  Somn.  i.  §  13  ;  De  Viet.  Offer.  §  5  ; 
vbpoi  rgs  dXXgyopias ,  De  Abrah.  §  15).  He  quite  sincerely  believed  that 
he  was  developing  the  true  sense  of  Scripture,  and  after  laying  down 
the  distinctly  Platonic  doctrine  of  Ideas  says  McoovW  ecrri  Soypa  ovk 
ipov,  De  Opif.  Mund.  §  6. 

The  two  loci  classici  for  Philo’s  conceptions  of  allegory  are  in  the 
tracts  Quod  Deus  immutabilis,  §11,  and  De  Somn.  i.  §  40.  In  the  first 
he  argues  from  the  apparent  contradiction  between  the  statements 
“  God  is  not  a  man”  (Hum.  xxiii.  19),  and  “  God  is  as  a  man”  (Deut.  i. 
31)  that  God  has  two  methods  of  instruction,  one  for  “the  companions 
of  the  soul,”  and  the  other  for  “those  who  enter  into  agreements  and 
alliances  with  the  body.”  In  the  latter  passage  he  says  that  to  “  in¬ 
corporeal  souls  ”  God  converses  as  a  friend,  whereas  he  trains  the  sensu¬ 
ous  by  condescension  and  fear.  On  the  expression  “  God  came  down  ”  he 
says,  ravra.  .  .  dv6p<Mvo\oyeiTanvapardi>  vo  po6  erg  t re  pi  rov  pg  dvdpod7rop6pef)ov 
Qeov  8lcl  ras  rcov  iraib^vopivcnv  gpd>v  orpeXelas  ( De  Conf.  Ling.  §  27),  and 
that  to  take  it  literally  would  be  v7vepcoKedvtos  /cal  peraicocrpLos  aaifSeia. 

His  two  strongest  and  plainest  statements  on  the  subject  are  De 
Joseph.  §  6,  Sye'Sov  yap  ra  ndvra  rj  ra  nXeiarargs  vopodealas  dXXgyopeirai  : 
and  De  Spec.  Legg.  §  39,  ra  nXelara  rwv  iv  vopots  avpftoXa  Qavepa 
aQavcov  /cal  pgra  dppgrcov.  He  sometimes  puts  aside  the  literal  sense 
entirely,  e.g.  writing  on  Ecc.  vii.  15,  he  says  ovbe  yap  7repl  Tvorapcov  iarLv 
laroplas  g  ivapovaa  cnvovbg  nepl  di  ra>v  (3lg)v  k.t.X.  :  and,  speaking  of  Sarah 
and  Hagar,  he  says  ov  yap  7repl  yvvaadov  icrrov  6  Xoyos  aWa  biavoicov. 

See  Dahne,  Alex.  Religionsphilos.  i.  49-80. 

Siegfried,  Philo ,  160-165. 


Notes. 


457 


NOTE  Y. 

PHILO  AND  MESSIANIC  HOPES. 

In  the  lull  of  persecution  and  the  growth  of  prosperity  among  the 

exandrian  Jews,  the  Messianic  hopes,  which  had  once  been  the  stay 

Ind  faint  n  Seem  ‘°  W  become  Very  con™ntional 

The  word  Messiah  does  not  occur  in  Philo’s  writings,  nor  does  he 
even  comment  on  the  great  Evangelical  prophecies.  When  lie  alludes 
to  those  which  occur  in  the  Pentateuch,  it  is  only  to  minimise  their 

Thus  in  his  Legis  AUegoriae  (iii.  §§  63-70),  he  gives  a  truly  deplorable 
specimen  of  exegesis  on  Gen.  iii.  15.  The  enmity  between  the  woman 
and  the  serpent  is  the  conflict  between  pleasure  and  sense,  passion  and 
mind.  His  extraordinary  comment  on  “  It  (airir)  shall  bruise 
thy  head,  and  thou  shalt  bruise  his  heel,”  is  that  the  expression  is  a 
barbarism  but  that  this  is  corrected  by  the  significance.  For  he  says 
that  the  he  (airis)  refers  to  the  woman,  and  should  therefore  be  air A 
hut,  he  says,  Moses  has  passed  from  the  woman  to  the  seed,  and  its 
principle  which  is  “  mind  ”  (rots)  and  therefore  masculine.  The  “  mind  ” 
s  rail  bruise,  or  following  the  ordinary  meaning  of  the  word  in  the  LXX. 

s  iall  observe,”  the  head  (i.e.  the  predominant  doctrine)  of  pleasure," 
and  thou  shalt  observe  the  steps  of  the  mind,  and  the  supporter  of 
things  which  please  it,  to  which  the  “  heels  ”  are  naturally  likened. 
»omg  on  to  comment  on  the  curious  phrase  of  the  LXX.  G, i  ]ie 
says  that  it  may  mean  either  “shall  guard”  (8 iau&au,  8<a<f>v\dMl  or 
shal  watch  with  a  view  to  destruction.”  The  former  applies  to  the 
worthless  mind  which  treasures  up  pleasures,  and  the  latter  to  the 
earnest  mind,  which  looks  out  for  the  attacks  of  pleasure,  and  tries  to 
destroy  it :  and  then  follows  a  digressive  allegorical  illustration  about 
Jacob.  It  will  be  seen  at  once  that  there  is  no  Messianism  here,  and 
>a  ill  the  hands  of  Plnlo  the  passage  loses  its  profound  and  far-reaching 
significance,  and  is  evaporated  into  moral  platitudes. 

So  again  with  the  marvellous  promise  to  Abraham,  “And  in  thy  seed 
shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed.”  This  is  what  Philo  has 
to  say  upon  it  in  De  Somniis  (i.  §  29).  “  This  prophecy,”  he  says,  “  accords 
with  what  is  true  both  to  a  man  individually  and  in  his  relation  to 
others.  I  or  if  my  own  inward  mind  be  purified  by  perfect 

myself  with  aTeference^to^dileusner^u  °f  ^  1  “ 


458 


Notes. 


virtue,  and  the  tribes  of  the  earthly  around  me  are  also  swept  away, 
namely  my  natural  senses,  and  if  any  one  in  a  family,  or  city,  or 
country,  or  nation  has  become  a  lover  of  prudences,  then  the  family,  and 
country,  and  nation  necessarily  enjoys  a  better  life.  For  just  as  odorous 
substance  diffuses  its  sweet  aroma  to  all  who  come  near  it,  so  all  who  are 
neighbours  of  the  wise  are  bettered  in  character  as  they  breathe  the 
outpoured  fragrancy.”  This  may  be  a  poetic  commonplace,  hut  all  the 
glowing  Messianic  element  of  the  most  glorious  of  the  Jewish  hopes 
has  disappeared. 

It  is  quite  clear  that  Philo  in  no  sense  identifies  the  Messiah  with  the 
Logos.  There  is  an  allusion  to  national  victories  under  some  great 
coming  leader  in  De  Proemiis  (§  16  ),  and  to  the  share  of  heathen 
proselytes  in  Jewish  blessings  in  De  Execrcitionibus,  §  6. 

Did  Philo  ever  see  Jesus?  It  is  just  possible  that  he  did,  for  he 
tells  us  in  his  hook  on  “  Providence  ”  (Aucher,  ii.  107)  that  he  once 
visited  Jerusalem  and  there  offered  a  sacrifice.  But  if  he  saw  Christ  he 
knew  nothing  of  Him,  and  he  rejected  the  very  possibility  of  an  Incar¬ 
nation  as  a  mere  hypothetical  absurdity  which  could  hardly  he  even 
thought  of  without  impiety.  For  in  condemning  the  insane  attempt  of 
the  Emperor  Gaius  to  place  a  colossal  statue  of  himself  in  the  Temple 
of  Jerusalem,  he  calls  it  “the  gravest  impiety”  to  liken  the  uncreated 
and  incorruptible  God  to  the  created  and  corruptible  nature  of  men , 
and  adds  by  way  of  scornful  parenthesis  or  reductio  ad  absurdum ,  Buttov 
yap  els  avBpooTrov  Beov  rj  els  Beov  avBpamov  perafiaXeLV.1 

1  On  this  and  other  questions  connected  with  Philo’s  theology  there  is  an 
interesting  sermon  by  Professor  (now  Bishop)  Wordsworth  “On  Jewish  In¬ 
terpretation  of  Messianic  Prophecy,”  preached  before  the  University  of  Oxford 
in  March,  1880. 


LECTURE  IV. 


PATRISTIC  REASONS  FOR  ADOPTING  ALLEGORY. 

1.  The  asserted  unworthiness  of  the  letter. 

JHwmSimP!eX  S6d  alta  mysteria;  aliu<i  enim  gerebatur,  aliud 
^urabatur ;  quia  litteralis  sensus  indignus  estl  Ambr  De  Fid e 

“  Ubi  materia  vel  turpitudinem  habeat  vel  impossibUitomfd  altiora 
transnnttimur.  ’ — Jer.  in  Matt.  xxi.  4. 

“  Q.uidquid  in  sermone  diyino  neque  ad  morum  honestatem,  neque  ad 

filet  veniatem  propne  referri  potest,  figuratum  esse  eognoscas.”  Aim  De 
Doctr.  Christ,  iii.  §  13.  & 

2.  The  unwarranted  extension  of  isolated  expressions  to  the  whole 
bcnptures . 

Jerome,  after  quoting  Ps.  Ixxviii.  2,  says,  “  Ex  quo  intelligimus  uni- 
versa  quae  scnpta  sunt  parabolice  sentienda,  nec  manifesto  tantum 
sonare  litteram  sed  abscondita  sacramenta.”  In  Matt.  xiii.  35. 

3.  Entire  misapplication  of  tbe  verse,  “  The  letter  Hlleth,  but  the 
bpirit  giveth  life  ”  2  Cor.  iii.  6). 

This  verse  is  quoted  times  without  number  by  the  Fathers  and  Scliool- 
men.  ^  t  is  obvious  that  if  by  “the  letter”  were  meant  “the  literal 
sense,  St  Paul  would  have  been  condemning  the  literal  sense  altogether 
as  being  of  a  fatal  tendency.  The  context  shows  the  meaning  to  be  that 
he  Law  has  nothing  to  say,  but  to  threaten  death  to  transgressors  •  or 

10 /p  )  he  W’ taken  alone’ causes  first  sin  and  then  death  (Eom-  vii. 

4.  The  notion  that  all  senses  (within  the  limits  of  the  Christian  faith) 

are  applicable  because  they  must  have  been  foreseen  by  the  Spirit  •  this 

argument  would  cover  and  justify  all  the  divergences  of  all  the 
L/Iinstian  sects. 

“ Ille  1ulPPe  auctor  in  eisdem  verbis  quae  intelligere  volumus,  et  ipsam 
sentential,,  forsitan  vidit,  et  certe  Dei  Spiritus  .  .  etiam  ipsam  occursuram 

ctori  praevidit,  immo  ut  occurreret .  .  sine  dubitatione  providit Aug 
Ue  Doctr.  Christ,  m.  p.  32. 


460 


Notes. 


This  astonishing  assumption  is  repeated  by  Cocceius  (see  the  passage 
quoted  in  Lecture  VII.,  and  recently  by  Dr.  Pusey). 

5.  The  supposed  use  of  allegory  by  St.  Paul. 

6.  Passages  adduced  as  sanctioning  allegoric  interpretation.  Every 
passage  which  can  by  any  possibility  be  pressed  into  such  a  conclusion 
is  given  by  Sixtus  Senensis,  in  his  Bibliotheca  Sancta ,  and  by  Water- 
land,  Preface  to  Scripture  Vindicated.  In  various  passages  of  these 
Lectures  I  have  shown  their  want  of  validity.  Sixtus  Senensis  clearly 
shows  that  allegory  is  the  result,  not  of  loyalty  to  Scripture,  but  of 
radical  disloyalty  to  it  as  it  is,  in  such  remarks  as  the  following.  He 
says  that  to  take  Scripture  literally  is  inevitably  “contaminari  et  inqui- 
nari  Judaicis  institutis  ;  ”  that  it  involves  the  duty  of  keeping  the  Cere¬ 
monial  Law,  fc  caeterasque  Hebraeorum  umbras  quae  jam  illucescente 
Evangelii  luce  evanuerunt.”  If  we  take  the  Old  Testament  literally 
we  shall  have  no  answer  when  men  ask,  u  Cur  Deus  dederit  tarn  absurdas 
leges — amputare  praeputii  pelliculam,  occidere  agnum,  &c.,  sanguine 
beluino  cuncta  foedare,  gerere  paxillurn  in  balteo  et  egesta  liumo  felium 
more  proprii  corporis  excrementa  contigere,”  &c.  He  adds  the  remark¬ 
able  words  “  Videbuntur  nobis  omnia  insipida,  agrestia ,  insana,  et  prorsus 
divina  majestate  indigna  esse,  quae  Deus  praecipit  de  agno,  de  ariete,  de 
bove,”  &c.  “  Quid  enim  ad  salutem  juvat  scire  antiquorum  Judaeorum 
bella  et  seditiones,  si  in  eis  nihil  aliud  quam  strages  et  effusiones 
sanguinis  intelligimus  ?  ” 

Thus  in  Aqiba  ;  in  Philo  ;  in  Jerome,  Augustine,  Hilary,  and  most 
of  the  Fathers  ;  in  Bede  ;  in  Albertus,  and  most  of  the  Schoolmen  ; 
and  even  in  writers  who,  like  Sixtus  Senensis,  wrote  late  in  the  seven¬ 
teenth  century  (1666),  we  see  a  repetition  of  the  same  traditional  devices 
for  getting  rid  of  ‘  ‘  difficulties 55  which  only  originate  in  a  totally  false 
conception  of  God’s  progressive  revelation.  Allegory  was  used  to  force 
Scripture  into  accordance  with  men’s  a  priori  conceptions.  The  Bible 
is  treated  as  a  sovereign  who,  being  declared  by  his  courtiers  to  be  of 
divine  origin  and  supreme  authority,  is  yet  reduced  to  a  Roi  faineant , 
and  made  at  all  costs  to  speak  their  language  and  obey  their  behests. 


lecture  y. 

NOTE  I. 

MEDIAEVAL  JEWISH  COMMENTATORS, 

The  golden  age  of  Jewish  interpretation  was  between  a.d.  900-1500. 
It  began  with  R.  Saadia  Gaon,  and  continued  till  Isaak  Abravanel. 
Ihe  chief  writers  on  Scripture  flourished  in  Africa,  Spain,  France, 
ermany,  and  Italy.  The  fresh  impulse  came  from  the  Arabian 
scholars,  asm  former  days  it  had  come  from  the  Greek  philosophers  i 
R.  Saadia  Gaon  (a.d.  892-942)  was  called  “  the  pioneer  of  the 
xegetes,  and  his  merits  were  so  great  that  Maimonides  said,  “  The 
sense  of  the  Law  would  have  been  quite  lost  had  not  R.  Saadiah  come 
orth  to  reveal  what  was  hidden,  and  to  establish  what  was  being  weak- 

6ne;  *  6  turned  hls  attention  to  the  Language,  the  Interpretation, 

and  the  Teaching  of  Scripture.  He  often  refers  to  the  Targum,  the 
Mishna,  and  the  analogy  of  Arabic  words.  Like  Josephus  and  Philo 
he  endeavours  to  remove  the  more  startling  elements  of  Scripture,  and 
explains  the  speaking  both  of  the  serpent  to  Eve,  and  of  the  ass  to 
alaam  metaphorically.  He  points  out  that  the  rainbow  could  not 
have  been  first  created  after  the  Deluge,  but  merely  taken  as  a  sign. 

e  rejected,  however,  the  naturalistic  explanation  of  miracles  suggested 
by  his  contemporaries  Chamiel  and  Ha  Kalbi,  and  also  the  allegoric 
explanations  of  the  Karaites.  He  said,  “  We  have  two  sources  of 
knowledge  beside  the  Bible,  namely,  the  Understanding,  and  Tradition.” 
e  found  an  acute  opponent  in  the  Karaite  Salmon  ben  Jerocham,  and 

in  Joseph  ben  Jacob,  whose  book,  The  Great  Light,  written  in  A  D 
930,  is  still  valued.  '  * 

Saadia  is  the  author  of  the  oldest  extant  Philosophy  of  Religion  a 
system  of  Eaith  and  Morals  (mini  niJlBK)  of  which  the  third  section 
reats  Of  the  Revelation  of  God’s  Word,  and  the  Eternal  Validity  of 
the  Law.”  In  writing  this  work  he  set  the  excellent  example  of 
familiarising  himself  with  the  philosophical  writings  and  translations 

1  I  have  referred  to  Wolf,  Bill.  Hehraica,  i.  337,  sn  in  590  .  Rl,a 

PraU.  S4 T’  *  ;  W°gUe’  mU  <Paris’  48lj ;  Low, 


462 


Notes. 


of  the  Arabians.  He  was  “a  fruit  of  the  Jewish  soil,  modified  by 
grafts  from  the  Arabian  garden,”  1  a.d.  980, 

The  grammatical  and  philosophic  gains  of  the  J ews  in  Africa  and 
Eastern  Asia  were  introduced  into  Spain  by  the  happy  accident  of  the 
shipwreck  of  Moses  “  clad  in  sackcloth.” 2 3 

The  first  pre-eminent  name  of  mediaeval  Jewish  exegesis  is  that  of 
R.  Solomon  ben  Jizchak  of  Troyes,  born  in  1040,  and  best  known  as 
Kashi.8  He  died  in  1105.  His  Midrashic  comment  on  the  Law  was 
long  a  standard  book  among  the  Jews.  It  was  the  first  Hebrew  book 
which  was  printed  (at  Keggio,  Feb.  5,  1470),  and  has  been  translated 
into  German  by  L.  Dukes.  It  had  a  powerful  influence  over  Nicolas 
of  Lyra,  and  indirectly  over  Luther. 

Saadi  a  had  written  in  Arabic,  Kashi  wrote  in  Hebrew.  Saadia, 
influenced  by  the  Karaites,  built  primarily  upon  the  literal  sense  ; 
Kashi  was  untouched  by  Karaite  opinions,  and  is  not  troubled  by  the 
divergence  of  the  Midrash  from  the  simple  sense.  Saadia  strove  to 
remove  objections  to  the  Bible  narrative;  Kashi  absolutely  ignores 
them.  Saadia  has  scientific  digressions  :  Kashi  abides  by  the  text,  some¬ 
times  furnishing  the  literal  explanation,  and  sometimes  adding  passages 
of  the  Midrashim.  He  was  not  wholly  uninfluenced  by  the  reactions 
in  favour  of  literal  and  grammatical  exegesis,  but  on  the  whole  he 
adheres  to  traditional  views.4 

The  commentaries  of  Rashbam  (K.  Samuel  ben  Meier,  f  1167),  the 
grandson  of  Kashi,  show  a  great  advance  in  the  abandonment  of 
Midrashic  lore  for  a  literal  and  grammatical  interpretation.5 

Juda  ha-Levi,  the  author  of  the  celebrated  Khozari ,  flourished 
a.d.  1140. 6  He  headed  the  reaction  against  extraneous  philosophical 
influences. 

Not  less  illustrious  than  Kashi  was  R.  Abraham  Ibn  Ezra  (Rabe), 
born  1092, 7  and  famous  for  his  scientific  discoveries  no  less  than  for  his 
Scriptural  commentaries  on  almost  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament. 
It  was  his  one  object  to  develop,  grammatically  and  historically,  the 
literal  sense.  He  disliked  the  allegoric  method.  Previous  exegetes  had 

1  Jost,  Judenth.  ii.  279  ;  Weill,  Le  Judaism e,  passim  ;  Munk,  Melanges , 
477  sq.  ;  Ewald  und  Dukes,  Beitrage  zur  Gesch.  d.  dltesten  Auslegung  in 
S'pracherlc larung  d.  Alten  Testamentes .  Stuttgart,  1844. 

2  See  Milman,  Hist,  of  the  Jews,  iii.  147. 

3  Often  incorrectly  called  Jarchi.  A  life  of  him  has  been  published  by 
Bloch,  1840.  See  too  Jost,  Gesch.  d.  Judenthums.  His  comment  on  Genesis 
has  been  translated  into  German  by  Haymann. 

4  As,  for  instance,  in  his  commentary  on  Koheleth.  See  Ginsburg,  p.  38. 

5  Id.  p.  43.  Dr.  Ginsburg  gives  valuable  specimens  of  these  Jewish  com¬ 
mentators. 

6  See  Munk,  Melanges,  485  sq. 

7  See  Gratz,  Gesch.  vi.  198  fg.  ;  440 ,fg. 


Notes. 


463 


chosen,  he  said,  five  different  paths.1  1  Some  like  •  i  , 

alien  scientific  digressions  with  their  comments  ’  2  Others 

re  ected  Tradition.  3.  Some  were  addicted  io  lne'orie’  4  f02 

.the  TilV ™ical5'sens^  VeTe  in  ^ 

r  ’  "T" iTZt  :<7£XZ,  t 

.a  “*  —  /, 

Maimonides.  R.  Mose  ben  Maimon  boro  io  iiqk  n  1 

SSSri:~;==fiSS 

azz  sjxjs  -;rtr  s-  “  v*~ 
-,-V  - 

against  the  absolute  principle  of  authority  He  held  that  th  S 

branches  of  hnowledge  which  were  independe^  of  faith  ‘and 
passages  which  touched  on  these  the  literal  sense  of  ^rriJ  “  “  * , 
allegorically  explained.  To  connteractl^lEZS^ 
m  his  book  of  the  Qabbala,  inserted  a  list  of  all  ii,,.  •  ,  °r’ 

who  had  received  the  « tradition  »  from  Z  day  of 

own.‘  Maimonides  assigned  to  Aristotle  unconditional  author?  ‘°  T 
Hel-  d?  Ti?  SP“e  °f  V10lent  *  permanent  Tfluence.” 


•  ouf °?^^arrati  divided  “the  sects  of  the  faithful”  inf-n  f  ^ 

*•  it/Ss xiz 

Though  unac0qnuaintedlewHht  thT workT  of Philo^  aZT^  methods- 

& ir-  V- 

has  been  translated  by  Frwdlander.  (Lend  ®  commeIltary  <®  Isaiah 

Franck  in  Diet.  deTsehmJtphite.  if1  3™  °f  the  “M<m:h  Nebudiim,"  and 
5  ?<ep,Schwab’  Ber(uhoth,  Introd.  p.  xiv. 

Modernes,  les  Spinoza, ^les  MendelSh^^e^Sa^113  ^nieS  des  Juifs 

sea?*  *•*— j- 


464 


Notes. 


The  Jews  partake  incontestably  with  the  Arabs  the  glory  of  having 
preserved  and  propagated  philosophy  in  ages  of  barbarism,  and  so  of 
having  exercised  for  a  time  a  civilising  influence  over  the  European 

world.1 

The  family  of  the  Qimchis  of  Narbonne  R.  Joseph  Qimchi  and 
his  two  sons,  R.  David  and  R.  Moses — rendered  the  highest  services  to 
Hebrew  philology,  and  to  the  natural  interpretation  of  the  Bible.  So 
highly  was  the  grammar  of  David  Qimchi  valued  that  the  Jews  applied 
to  him  a  proverb  from  the  Mishna,  (l  Where  there  is  no  Qimchi,  there  is 
no  knowledge  of  the  Law.”  2 

The  revival  of  Kabbalism  by  R.  Moses  ben  Nachman  (Nachmanides) 
sometimes  called  Ramban  (born  1194)  was  partly  due  to  the  inevitable 
reaction  against  a  cold,  historic,  and  rationalising  exegesis. 

To  this  epoch,  according  to  some,  belongs  the  Zohar,  a  Kabbalistic 
Midrash  on  the  Pentateuch,  founded  on  the  Talmud,  the  Midrashim, 
and  the  works  of  Ibn  Gebirol,  Ibn  Ezra,  and  others. 

R.  Joseph  Albo  (+  1444),  the  author  of  the  Sejoher  Ikkarim,  is  chiefly 
known  as  a  theologian.  He  followed  the  Midrash,  but  in  a  tasteful  and 
philosophic  manner. 

Abravanel  (Don  Isaak  ben  Judah  Abravanel),  born  in  1437  at  Lisbon, 
was  one  of  the  Jews  who  were  banished  from  Spain  in  1492  by  the 
brutal  and  suicidal  decree  of  Ferdinand.  He  was  eminent  as  a  com¬ 
mentator,  and  made  free  use  of  Christian  writings.  His  special  cha¬ 
racteristics  were  that :  1.  He  shook  off  the  fetters  of  Aristotelianism. 
2.  He  rejected  Kabbalism.  3.  He  returned  to  the  neglected  grammatical 
methods  of  the  Qimchis  and  R.  Levi  ben  Gerson  (Ralbag).  4.  He 
brought  his  wide  experience  of  life  as  a  traveller  and  statesman  to  bear 
on  the  historical  books.  5.  Though  he  did  not  possess  the  works  of 
R.  Tanchum,  who  had  been  the  first  to  write  a  general  introduction  to 
the  sacred  books,  he  paid  special  attention  to  Hermeneutics,  pointing 
out  the  times  and  circumstances  in  which  books  were  written.3 

Elias  Levita  (+  1549),  the  teacher  of  bishops  and  cardinals,  wrote 
grammatical  treatises,  which  are  so  highly  valued  that  R.  Simon 
urged  all  who  desired  to  know  Hebrew  to  study  them.  He  is  highly 
praised  by  Gesenius,  and  his  book  on  the  Massora  has  been  translated 
into  English  by  Dr.  Ginsburg. 

1  Munk,  Melanges,  511. 

2  The  word  nbp  means  “meal,”  and  the  phrase  originally  meant  that 
men  cannot  study  the  Law  when  they  are  starving.  Dr.  McCaul  has  trans¬ 
lated  David  Qimchi’s  Commentary  on  Zechariah  (Lond.  1837). 

3  See  Gratz,  Gesch.  viii.  334  ;  ix.  6. 


Notes. 


465 


NOTE  II. 

TITLES  OF  THE  SCHOOLMEN.1 


Baeda. 

Anselm  of  Laon. 

St.  Thomas  Aquinas. 

St.  Bonaventura. 
Alexander  of  Hales. 
Albertus  Magnus. 

Francis cus  de  Mayronis. 
Roger  Bacon. 

William  Varro  de  Anglia 
Aegidius  of  Colonna. 


Venerabilis. 

Doctor  Scholasticus. 

Doctor  Angelicus  and  Communis. 
Doctor  Seraphicus. 

Doctor  Irrefragabilis. 

Doctor  Universalis. 

Doctor  Illuminatissimus. 

Doctor  Mirabilis. 

.  Doctor  Fundatus. 

Doctor  Fundatissimus  and  Princeps. 

Theologorum. 

Didascalus. 

Doctor  Resolutus. 

Doctor  Resolutissimus. 

Magister  Sententiarum. 

Columna  doctorum. 

Doctor  Mellifluus. 

Doctor  Planus  et  Perspicuus. 

Doctor  Profundus. 

Doctor  Facundus,  or  Abundans. 
Doctor  Singularis  et  Invincibilis  and 
Venerabilis  Inceptor. 

Doctor  Subtilis. 

Doctor  Solemnis. 

Doctor  Christianissimus. 

Doctor  Evangelicus. 

Doctor  Ecstaticus. 

Lux  Mundi,  and  Magister  Contra¬ 
diction^. 

passim.  HeUmanl1’  Ad'  P,alos ■  921  ;  Brucker,  Hist.  Philos,  iii.  889,  anti 


Hugo  de  Sto.  Victore. 
Joannes  Baconthorpius. 
Duran  dus. 

Peter  Lombard. 

William  of  Champeaux. 
St.  Bernard. 

Nicolas  of  Lyra. 

John  Bradwardine. 
Petrus  Aureolis. 

William  of  Occam. 

Duns  Scotus. 

Henry  of  Ghent. 

Jean  Gerson. 

Wiclif. 

Dionysius  of  Rickel. 

John  Wessel. 


H  H 


466 


Notes . 


NOTE  III. 

ORIGIN  OF  SCHOLASTICISM. 

The  precursor,  though  not  the  founder,  of  Scholasticism,  was 
St.  John  of  Damascus.  His  book,  Fons  Scientiae  (7777717  yvc »<re©s),  con¬ 
sists  of  three  parts  : — 1.  Capita  Philosophica.  2.  De  Haeresibus .  3. 

Expositio  accurata  Fidei  orthodoxae.  This  third  part  is  c  one  of  the 
most  important  works  that  have  come  down  to  us  from  Christian 
antiquity.”  For  it  is  the  first  complete  ‘‘Body  of  Divinity  ”  that  we 
possess,  and  as  such  has  had  an  influence  that  cannot  easily  be  measured 
on  the  theology  of  the  West,  It  was  made  known  to  the  Latin  Church 
by  the  version  of  Burgundio  of  Pisa  in  1150.  The  statement  that  Peter 
Lombard  had  this  version  before  him  when  preparing  his  Book  of  the 
Sentences  “thus  becomes  quite  probable.  Without,  therefore,  taking 
account  of  Aquinas,  whose  indebtedness  to  the  work  of  Damascenus  is 
admittedly  great,  we  have  here  a  visible  link  of  connection  between  the 

Eastern  Church  and  the  Western.”  1 

“  It  is  chiefly  as  a  framer  of  systems  that  we  are  indebted  to  him.  .  . 
Making  theology  a  part  of  philosophy,  as  Aristotle  had  done  before 
him,  he  applied  to  it  a  philosophic  method.  Taking  for  his  basis  the 
existence  of  God  .  .  he  organises,  step  by  step,  the  whole  body  of  reli¬ 
gion  and  Christian  truth.  He  is  thus  the  progenitor  of  Scholasticism. 
Though  the  proposition  has  been  disputed  as  an  exercise  of  scholastic 
skill,  it  is  the  all  but  unanimous  verdict  that  the  great  treatise  on  the 
‘  Orthodox  Faith 5  was  the  starting-point  of  the  Scholastic  system 
which  afterwards  grew  to  such  dimensions  in  the  West.”  2 

There  is,  however,  no  proof  that  the  earliest  Schoolmen  were  ac¬ 
quainted  with  the  Fides  Orthodoxa  of  the  Damascene.  It  was  first 
translated  by  the  order  of  Pope  Eugenius  III.  in  1143.  From  the  time 
of  Peter  Lombard  it  became  a  favourite  authority  of  the  “school 
authors.”3  The  Calvinists  in  later  days  reproached  Melanchthon  for 
having  imitated  it,  and  even  Luther  said  of  him,  “  Nimium  philo- 
sophatur .”  4 

Some  date  the  beginning  of  Scholasticism  from  John  Scotus 
Erigena.5 

1  See  Lupton,  St.  John  of  Damascus ,  pp.  65-88  ;  Remusat,  Abilard, 
ii.  158. 

2  Lupton,  p.  211,  who  refers  to  Dr.  Gerando,  Fist.  Comp.  iv.  159. 

3  Tribbechovius,  De  Doct.  Schol.  p.  280. 

4  Buddeus,  Isag.  p.  319  ;  Lequien,  Opp.  Joann.  Damasc.  Praef.  p.  5. 

5  See  R.  L.  Poole,  Mediaev.  Thought ,  p.  76.  He  was  “the  father  of 
Nominalism,”  and  greatly  influenced  Gilbert  de  la  Porree. 


Notes. 


467 


AnsSnl  ^  thB  b6ginning  °f  S^olaBUcism  from  Lanfranc  or 

Others  from  Peter  Lombard.2 
Others  from  Alexander  of  Hales.3 
Others  from  Albertus  Magnus  4  * 

proper  began  with  the'confliots^bT  ^  ^  that  Scholasticism 
Scholastic  philosophy  bl  n  TT  tTaditi°™U™  and  free  inquiry, 
with  Abelard.  Jc/is  th°e“  el'S  ££&£  f^^logy 
Abelard.  “Ab  hoc  tern 1  i  •  cclloyills-  Tnthemms  says  of 
curiositate  inutili  foeclare  coepit  ^  ^  SeCUkriS  sacram  theologiam  sua 

t  his  h,cidity-  °f 

facilitas  generanda.  bSZS!  ^ 

num  rerum  intellectni  serviebat.”  ? '  FmVateUcum  Palati- 

preserved  in  the  ilthltaLfatilnof^Bofthk,  ?e?tence  of  P°rphyry 
as  to  the  nature  of  genera  {/<’?;„)  r  ■  U  " ”C  1  stated  ;lie  question 
eleventh  to  the  thirteenth  centn  ’  "r™  U068  ltS  ivfancV  from  the 

■*— .  *•  ~  tsrv  pr  ™ 

great  Universities  t  •  to  tJie  fifteenth,  when  the 

'Mine  from  the'  fifteenth  to  ftf end  of  T 8  i  a"d  its 

it  turned  entirely  on  the  diff  1  16  Slxteent^*8  a  philosophy 

Its  theology  urnishes  the  s  T"  ^  ******  8nd  — iualifnn 

spirit  express^  tel  1 1  f  1  T  °f  a  raalis‘  Hatonising 

^  -  “pad’  h°werer> 

p.^56;  Kling  in  Herzogts  EncykL  Ty.  “US’  Amtal  T1’  ’  Baur>  A>ogmengesch. 

4  “  C'  ^onc\  Trident,  p.  371. 

forreare  EndeSafdoctrinam  in  Philo'*1  ,f"crant  doctrinae  Aristotelis,  trans. 
Lutheri,  c.  xiii.  a“  “  Plnlosophiam  coeperunt. "-Melanchthon, Vit. 

i^Ceff UAlU  (C°'10,liae’  1546)  i  Thomasius, 
ined.  cVAMlard ,  Jntrod.  p.  iii  “  C’est  +■  48  5  Cousin,  Ouvr. 

pjulosophique  et  1’applicatioii  de  ee  sva  ',  ,""1  d  ™.  Douveau  systeme 

pine  4  la  theologie  "  .  c'est  AMkrd^o In- L?  “  «“^al.  de  Ia  pMoso- 
hu  qui  contnbua  le  plus  4  fonder  ]a  Jol  Jtj  'gea  ™  pnneipe  ;  c’est  done 

the  destroyer  Of  this  system  and  the  founder  of’moderfnbT  Is  Descartes 
this  is  the  name  which  John  a  i • V  mocIern  philosophy. 

It  means  “the  dialectician  of  Palais  ’’—the  tT^  rePeatec^y  gUes  to  Abelard. 

'  Metalog.  iii.  1.  aJaiS>  — the  P]ace  where  Abelard  was  born. 

^  ■  Cousin,  Ouvr .  ined.  d'  Ah.  p.  Ixv. 


H  H  2 


468 


Notes. 


original.  “  Advance  is  measured  less  by  the  power  with  which  men 
used  their  intellects,  than  by  the  skill  with  which  they  used  their 

materials.”  1 


NOTE  IV. 

THE  “  SIC  ET  NON  ”  OF  ABELARD. 

When  William  of  St.  Thierry  wrote  to  complain  to  St.  Bernard  of 
Abelard’s  theology,  he  had  only  heard  a  rumour  about  the  Sic  et  Non. 

“  Sunt  autem,”  he  says,  “  ut  audio  adhuc  alia  ejus  opuscula  quorum 
nomina  sunt  Sic  et  Non ,  Scito  teipsum ,  et  alia  quaedam  de  quibus  timeo 
ne,  sicut  monstruosi  sunt  nominis,  sic  etiam  sint  monstruosi  dogmatis  ; 
sed,  sicut  dicunt ,  oderunt  lucem ,  nec  etiam  quae  si  ta  inveniuntur. 

Such  was  the  terror  which  the  book  inspired  that  this  is  said  to  be 
the  only  mention  of  the  Sic  et  Non  in  the  middle  ages. 

Martene  and  Durand  found  a  copy  of  it  at  St.  Germain,  but  did  no 
dare  to  publish  it  for  fear  of  scandal.  They  say  that,  in  it,  Abelard 
“  genio  suo  indulgens  omnia  Christianae  religionis  mysteria  in  utramque 
partem  versat,  negans  quod  asseruerat  et  asserens  quod  negaverat. 
Their  colleague  Dachery  after  careful  study  of  it  “aeternis  tenebris 

potius  quam  luce  dignum  existimavit.”  3 

Little  or  nothing  was  known  of  it  until  it  was  published  by  M. 
Victor  Cousin  in  the  Ouvrages  inedits  d"1  Abelard,  1836. 

It  deals  with  the  subjects  which  formed  the  basis  of  Abelard  s  theology . 
He  quotes  from  Augustine,  Jerome,  Ambrose,  Hilary,  Isidore,  Gregory, 
and  Bede  ;  but  being  very  superficially  acquainted  with  Greek,  he 
refers  but  little  to  Greek  Fathers  and  only  to  those  whose  works  had 
been  translated  into  Latin.  He  also  quotes  from  Aristotle,  Boethius^ 
Seneca,  Cicero,  and  once  from  Ovid  and  Prudentius. 

Three  things  are  specially  observable  in  the  Sic  et  Non  besides  the 

singular  boldness  of  the  general  plan. 

I.  One  is  the  audacious  statement  of  the  questions  considered  ; 

such  as, 

Q.  6.  Quod  sit  Deus  tripartitus  %  et  contra. 

Q.  14.  Quod  sit  Filius  sine  principio  ?  et  contra. 

Q.  63.  Quod  Filius  Dei  mutatus  sit  suscipiendo  carnem  ?  et 

contra. 

Q.  35.  Quod  nihil  fiat  Deo  nolente  ?  et  contra. 

1  Lane,  Illustrations  of  Med.  Thought,  p.  2.  2  Ap.  S.  Bern.  Opp.  i.  301. 

3  Praef.  ad  Thes.  Nov.  Anecd.  t.  iv. 


Notes. 


469 


verbum  Dei  cndiderin^TTZn  indicates thef THnitaUm  seu 
Philosophy  which  was  so  suspl  ou  to  St  B  6  ^  °f  1 heath» 

spirit  shown  by  Tertu Ilian’s  remark  R  ,  Wh°  Sti11  shared 

Phi?  This  with  his  anti-realism  wls  ZtZTZ^T 
indictment  of  his  theology,  “Cum  de  Trinifafc^' T S  tremen<io“s 

sr  tsu  &£& 

-  ,’„u  „,*i  zxr, 

and  adopted  his  concentn ‘ill- .  o  7  ■*.  ,  n  Praise  and  aflection, 

thiLrI^SSion  of  the  M  gave 

discussion,  and' dlscusrion^^truth^ilMj^a  TW’  ^  ^  *° 

venimus,  inquirendo  veritnten  ''  1  an(  0  ('!“n‘  ad  inquisitionem 

ously  compls  with  «££ ***  «' 

deals  with^X^S  Cntl.ci®m  in  the  passages  in  which  he 
contradictions,  the  T  X™ 

writings,  the  ignorance  of  copyists  the  1™  e  'ber  of  sPun°ns 
with  the  text,  and  the  differs n  ’  r  '  ^  con*U81ng  comments 
to  the  same  word  “  °f  ““  wh**  ^  b*  attached 


NOTE  V. 


THE  ABUSE  OF  “PARALLEL  PASSAGES.” 

The  use  of  allegory  was  largely  eked  out  by  the  juxtaposition  of 

mainly  TT™  ‘T  ^  6Xegesis  consist«' 

man  ly  of  glossarial  annotations,  groaning  beneath  the  burden  of 

numberless  unsifted  examples  and  parallel  passages.”  We  have  already’ 

f6n  fat  f?n  this  led  ^  the  habit  of  educi„gBparallI  denVedTnty 

rom  translations  it  was  a  most  unsatisfactory  method  ^ 

The  amazing  extent  to  which  the  principle  was  used  may  be  seen  in 
such  a  comment  as  that  of  Prosper  of  Aquitaine  on  the  Tabernacle 
He  says  that  the  joining  of  the  sides  indicated  that  mercy  and  truth 
vveie  met  together ;  the  goat’s  hair  curtains  the  penitence  of  the  world  • 
and  the  fact  that  there  were  eleven  curtains  has  reference  to  the  eleventh’ 
salm  (the  twelfth  in  our  version)  which  begins  “  Plelp,  Lord  ”  t  * 


l  EP-  °d  Papain  Innocent.  Opp.  i.  650. 
3  Opp.  i.  185. 


1  ert.  cidv.  Hermog.  8. 
4  De  Promiss.  ii.  2. 


470 


Notes. 


The  custom  of  crowding  the  margin  of  “  reference  Bibles  ”  with 
passages  supposed  to  be  illustrative  has  been  greatly  overdone.  In  the 
Bible  of  1611  there  were  about  9000  ;  these  by  gradual  accretion  have 
mounted  to  nearly  63,000.  Large  numbers  were  added  by  Dr.  Paris 
(1768),  Dr.  Blayney  (1769),  Canne  (1747),  Crutwell  (1785),  Clarke  (1810), 
and  Scott  (1822).  They  need  the  stringent  revision  which  they  have 
received  in  the  Cambridge  Paragraph  Bible.  Some  of  them  are  hope¬ 
lessly  wrong  5  some  are  founded  on  sheer  mistakes  ;  others  are  misprints , 
others  are  only  parallels  in  the  English  phrase,  but  not  in  the  Greek  or 
Hebrew  original ;  others  again  are  frivolous,  irrelevant,  questionable,  or 
even  untrue,  and  in  some  of  these  instances  they  become  positively 
misleading.  How  suggestive  and  truly  illustrative  they  may  often  be 
when  they  are  well  chosen,  may  be  seen  in  the  Commentary  wholly 
Biblical. 

For  some  very  interesting  particulars  about  the  marginal  references 
of  onr  version,  see  Dr.  Scrivener’s  Authorised  Version  of  the  English 
Bible ,  (Cambr.  1884)  pp.  116-127. 


NOTE  VI. 

OPINIONS  ON  SCHOLASTICISM. 

Favourable  judgments  of  Scholasticism  are  not  easily  to  be  found.  I 
may  however  refer  (merely  by  way  of  example)  to — 

Hooker,  Answer  to  Travers ,  16  (who  refers  to  Calvin’s  Instit.  i. 
16,  §  9. 

Pearson,  Opera  Minora  (ed.  Churton,  i.  1). 

Newman,  Lectures  on  Univ.  subjects,  p.  282. 

Remusat,  Abelard,  i.  289. 

Unfavourable  views  of  Scholasticism  are  very  numerous  and  very 
weighty.  See  by  way  of  specimens — 

Lud.  Yives,  De  Corrupt.  Art.  iii. 

Cornel.  Agrippa,  De  Vanitat.  Scient.  8. 

Bacon,  A  dvancement  of  Learning. 

Melanchtlion,  Vit.  Lutheri ,  c.  xiii. 

Luther,  passim. 

Tribbecliovius,  De  Doctoribus  Scholasticis  (1665). 

Brucker,  Hist.  Philos,  iii.  709. 

Wetstein,  Praef.  in  N.  Test.,  ed.  3. 

Hallam,  Middle  Ages ,  ii.  485-489. 

G.  H.  Lewes,  Biogr.  JPtst.  of  Philosophy ,  291. 

Renan,  Souvenirs,  xiv. 


LECTURE  VI. 
NOTE  I. 


REMARKS  OP  LUTHER  ON  THE  FATHERS. 

legoRe?2s  o TeZrt  ^  illOT"“  -ripta 

plus,  offender.  J.am  res  ipsa  clamat  eos  homines  fuisse  ,4 

ipsorum  auctoritas  Apostolorum  scripta  oppressit.  Attamen  Papistae 

undent  Scripturam  sacrum  obscuram  blasphemare,  .nasi  Patre7  earn 

^  J'ta  d6CW  **  °b",  Aurifaber, 

“  Observafe  quaeso  quantae  tenebrae  fuerunt  apud  Patres  de  doctrini 
bdei.  Hieronymus  supra  Matthaeum,  Galatas  et  ad  Titum  frimdosissime 

sx ,,i~  q»».  oji: 

— — “  E»  - *— « « o,o„. 

On  reading  Cyprian  he  sighed,  “Mirabatur  tanti  viri  ineptias  dubi 
tans  utrum  .He  liber  sit  Cypriani ;  sed  non  est  mirum  nam  ’si  D d 
verbum  relmquimus,  tunc  omnibus  offendiculis  nos  involving.” 
r  i  C  A'aS  VGTy  UDJUst  to  Chrysostom,  of  whom  he  says,  “  Multos  snlen 

^  SCd  tantU”  fUit  Cha0S  Ct  —  verborum. 5  ^  He 
calls  him  seditiosus  et  garrulus,”  and  adds,  “  Ideo  Erasmo  placet  oui 

Schurif  ST  aft  ““‘"T  tK,dit”  He  (luotes  the  remai  of 

said  “  Mult.  lego,  nihUdS?  read!Dg  **  °f  Ct»m> 

He  had  a  strong  prejudice  against  Jerome.  “Scripsit  xii.  libros  super 

Genesm,.  et  lumen  vix  dimidium  capitis  primi  pertLtat.”  <  Nih7de 

Christo  tractat  nisi  quod  nomine  utitur.  Tanturn  de  virginitate  ieiuniis 
cibis  scripsit.”  vugmiiaie,  jejumis, 

He  remarks  generally,  «  Patres  kabuerunt  magnam  auctoritatem  et 
interim  facto  est  injuria  bibliorum.  Ambroses,  Basilins  sunt  frigid  et 
Gregorius  Is  azianzanua  accusatur  quod  .  .  .  nihil  sincere  de  Deo°scrip- 

ik  159  n0“  Pa‘itUr  Ut  Verbis  et  larvis  nbligetur.”  Collju. 


472 


Notes. 


NOTE  II. 

calvin’s  notes  on  messianic  passages. 

Porphyry  in  the  third  century  had  asserted  c£  that  the  Apostles 
in  their  references  to  the  Old  Testament  had  abused  the  simplicity  and 
ignorance  of  their  readers.”  Jerome  replies  that  they  had  done  nothing 
of  the  kind,  but  that  they  strengthened  the  facts  ot  the  present  by  the 
testimonies  of  the  past,  by  spiritually  applying  to  Christ  s  first 
coming  the  promises  which  the  Jews  applied  carnally  to  His  second 
coming.  But  we  find  in  few  ancient  authors  anything  like  a  clear  con¬ 
ception  of  the  “  argument  from  prophecy.”  Calvin  has  expressed  him¬ 
self  more  boldly  on  this  subject  than  any  other  theologian,  and  has  not 
sufficiently  guarded  himself  by  any  adequate  statement  of  the  true 
conception  of  the  Messianic  prophecies. 

The  following  are  some  of  his  notes. 

Matt.  ii.  15.  “  Perinde  sit  hoc  nobis  extra  controversiam  locum  (Hos. 
xi.  1)  non  debere  ad  Christum  restringi.  Neque  tamen  a  Matthaeo 
torquetur,  sed  scite  aptatur  ad  praesentem  causam.” 

Matt.  ii.  23.  “  Tantum  est  allusio.” 

Matt.  viii.  IV.  “  Quod  apud  Jesaiam  (Is.  liii.  4)  de  animae  vitiis  dici 
certum  est,  Matthaeus  ad  corporales  morbos  transfert .” 

John  xix.  37.  Locum  hunc  (Zech.  xii.  10),  qui  secundum  literam  de 
Christo  exponere  conantur,  nimis  violenter  torquent.  Nec  vero  in  hunc 
finem  ab  evangelista  citatur  ;  sed  potius  ut  ostendat  Christum  esse  deum 
ilium,  qui  olim  conquestus  fuit  per  Zechariam,  sibi  pectus  a  Judaeis 
transfodi.” 

Heb.  iv.  4.  “  Jam  locum  ilium  quern  citaverat  ex  Davide  exornare 
incipit  ;  hactenus  eum  tractavit  secundum  litteram,  hunc  autem  expoli- 
endo  amplificat,  ideoque  alludit  magis  ad>  verba  Davidis  quam  interpre- 
tatur.  Ejusmodi  h re^epy curia  est  apud  Paulum  ad  Bom.  x.  6.” 

Heb.  xi.  21.  “  Quod  vulgo  receptum  erat  Apostolus  non  clubitat  suo 
instituto  accommodare.  Judaeis  quidem  scribebat  sed  qui  .  .  .  pa- 
triam  linguam  Graeca  mutaverant.  Schnus  autem  bac  in  parte  Apostolos 
non  adeo  fuisse  scrupulosos .” 


LECTURE  VIII. 

SOME  EXEG-ETIC  RULES  AND  PRINCIPLES.1 

1.  Everything  essential  in  Scripture  is  clearly  revealed. 

ttcivtci  ra  avaynaia  8?j\a.  Chrys.  Comm,  in  2  Thess. 

Tins  rule  is  our  chief  source  of  consolation  amid  the  endless 
perplexities  of  divergent  interpretation.  If  a  truth  be  essential  to 
salvation  it  must  appear  clearly  on  the  pages  which  contain  a 
Divine  Revelation:  otherwise  the  Revelation  would  not  be  a 
Revelation.  The  preceding  clause  of  St.  Chrysostom,  navra  aafr 

“  Tel  T“  ™pa  e‘lais  ypa(t,aU’ is  not  true-  ^  belied  by  the 
whole  history  of  exegesis,  which  in  different  ages  has  come  to 

opposite  conclusions  about  matters  of  much  importance. 

2.  The  true  sense  can  only  he  decided  by  the  original. 

Very  numerous  errors,  often  perpetuated  for  long  periods,  have 
arisen  from  reliance  on  current  versions.  They  prove  the  necessity 
lor  not  depending  on  translations,  whether  the  LXX.,  the  VuRate 
m  German,  the  Rheims,  and  Douay,  or  the  Anglican.  Even  when 
a  rendering  is  literally  correct,  it  may  in  some  cases  connote  a  very 
different  order  of  thought  from  that  originally  intended. 

“ Impossible  est  quod  proprietas  mans  linguae  servetur  in  alia.” 

Roger  Bacon  (Opus  magus,  iii.  1  ;  quoting  Jerome,  “si  ad  verbum 
interpreted?,  absurdum  est  ”). 

3.  Every  doctrine  and  every  inference  drawn  from  any  passage  must  be 
deduced  from  the  literal  sense. 

“  0mnes  sensus  Rtndantur  super  unnm,  scilicet  literalem  •  ex  quo 
solo  potest  Iraki  argumentum,  non  autem  ex  his  quae  secundum 
allegoriam  dicuntur.  Nec  tamen  Scripturae  idcirco  aliquid  deperit 
quia  nihil  sub  spintuah  sensu  continetur  fldei  necessarium,  quod 

1  Tlie  word  “ Hermeneutic ”  implies  the  SWpupp  ^,1  The  11  , 

fztfi  a  iVoRius^.  t 


474 


Notes. 


Scripturae  non  alicubi  per  literalem  sensum  manifeste  trad  ant. 55 
Thomas  Aquinas,  & 'amnia  I.  Qu.  2,  art.  10. 

“  Si  litera  tollitur  Scriptura  quid  est  ?  Lege  ergo  Scripturam  et 
disce  primum  diligenter  quae  corporaliter  narrat.”  Hugo  de  Sto 
Yictore. 

This  is  incomparably  more  true  than  the  sentiment  quoted  by 
Johannes  Sarisb.,  u  Litera  inutilis  est,  nec  curandum  quid  loquatur  ” 
(. Polycrat .  vii.  12)  ;  but  it  must  be  added  that  neither  Hugo  de 
Sto  Yictore  nor  many  others  who  enunciated  this  axiom  made  any 
real  use  of  it. 

It  is  true  that  John  of  Salisbury  places  the  sentence  about  the 
uselessness  of  the  letter  among  the  “  ineptiae  nugatorum,”  but  at 
the  close  of  the  same  chapter  he  half  endorses  their  views. 

4.  Ignorance  of  the  certain  meaning  of  many  passages  must  be  freely 
admitted. 

ytp  u  Teach  thy  tongue  to  say  c  I  do 

not  know?  ” 

I  do  not  remember  to  have  seen  this  Talmudic  rule  ever  pro¬ 
pounded  as  a  principle  of  exegesis,  but  it  seems  to  me  an  extremely 
important  one.  “  Melius  est,”  says  Augustine,  “  dubitare  de 
rebus  occultis  quarn  litigare  de  incertis”  (De  Gen.  ad  litt.  viii.  5). 
Thus  he  frankly  confesses  that  he  does  not  know  whom  or  what 
St.  Paul  meant  by  the  Man  of  Sin. 

5.  Theological  conclusions  cannot  be  founded  on  the  language  of  metaphor 
and  parable. 

(i  Theologica  parabolica  non  est  demonstrativa.” 

“  Pium  quidem  posse  esse  sensum  allegoriae  seel  nunquam  para¬ 
bolas  et  dubiam  aenigmatum  intelligen tiara  ad  auctoritatem  dogma- 
turn  posse  proficere.”  Jer.  in  Matt.  xiii. 

This  rule,  if  properly  attended  to,  would  have  cut  away  by  the 
roots  a  large  number  of  the  spurious  inferences  of  which  the 
commentaries  of  all  ages  furnish  many  specimens.  St.  Augustine 
insisted  on  this  rule  when  arguing  against  the  Donatists,  but  he 
often  neglects  it  himself.  “Quis  autem  nisi  impudentissime  nitatur 
aliquid  in  allegoria  positum  pro  se  interpretari  nisi  habeat  et  mani- 
festa  testimonia  quorum  lumine  illustrantur  obscura '!  ”  Aug.  in 
Mp.  48,  ad  Vincent. 

6.  Omnis  Scriptura  sacra  eo  spiritu  debet  legi  quo  scripta  est.  Thomas 
it  Kernpis. 

This  resembles  the  remark  of  St.  Augustine,  That  the  true  sense 
of  Scripture  is  Scripture,  and  no  other  sense. 


Notes. 


475 


7.  Scripture  must  be  interpreted  in  accordance  with  the  01  dinary  mlesof 
human  language. 

u  The  law  speaks  in  the  tongue  ol  the  sons  of  men. 

“  Nnllo  locutionis  genere  ntitur  Scriptura  quod  in  consuetudine 
hominum  non  inveniatur,  quia  utique  hominibus  loquitur. 

((  Qnaec unique  scripta  sunt  ad  nostram  doctrinam  scripta  sunt  , 
liinc  divinae  litterae  sunt  humana  capacitate  humanoque  serinom 

accommodata.”  Id.  de  Trim  i.  12. 

This  kind  of  condescension  ( o-vyKciTaftaai ?)  points  to  the  necessity 
for  Anthropomorphism,  Anthropopatliy,  &c.,  “just  as  conversing 
with  barbarians,”  says  Chrysostom,  “we  make  use  of  their  own 
tongue.”  The  recognition  of  the  truth  that  the  language  of  Scrip¬ 
ture  is  ordinary  language  does  away  with  multitudes  ol  spurious 
inferences  in  the  Talmud,  in  Philo,  in  the  Fathers,  in  the  School¬ 
men,  and  in  modern  commentators. 

8.  “  Distingue  tempora  et  concordabis  Scriptura  sJ  Aug. 

These  words  of  St.  Augustine  are  capable  of  an  application  far 
wider  than  he  gave  to  them.  They  may  be  used  to  express  the 
progressiveness  of  revelation,  and  the  necessity  for  interpreting 
Scripture  with  reference  to  the  views  and  morals  of  the  age  in 
which  its  various  books  were  written.  Commentators  of  all  epochs 
have  been  compared  to  the  painters  who  paint  Italian  cities  and 
customs  as  the  background  to  Scripture  scenes,  or  surround  sacred 
personages  with  groups  of  Dutch  burgomasters. 

9.  Bias  and  party  spirit  are  frequent  and  fatal  sources  op  exegetic  enoi. 

“  Vitiosissimum  dicendi  genus  depravare  sententias  et  ad  voiun- 
tatem  suam  Scripturam  traliere  repugnantem.”  Jerome  (Ep.  ad 
Paulihum,  liii.  7  ;  compare  Praef.  Comm,  in  Joann.,  and  Ep.  (lxiv. 
7,  ad  Fabiolam). 

“  Das  ist  der  beste  Lehrer,  der  seine  Meinung  niclit  in  die  Schrift, 
sondern  aus  der  Schrift  bringt.”  Luther  (Wei  he,  xxxi\.  131, 
Erlang.). 

“  Absint  praeconceptae  opiniones  et  studia  parti um  quibus  veritas 

non  potest  non  impediri.”  Kimedonc,  De  Scripto  Dei  \erbo, 

p.  622. 

10.  iL  A  dsit  quidem  pia  curiositas  et  curiosa  pietas.  Erasmus. 

We  must  welcome  lights  from  all  quaiters.  Cut  laitli,  so  fai  as 
it  is  in  knowledge,  is  imperfect,  and  requires  not  only  enlargement, 
but  correction.  Great  movements  of  the  human  spirit  are  not 
hostile  to  theology,  but  introduce  the  conditions  of  a  more  perfect 
development  of  it.”  The  Reformed  religion  will  be  false  to  all  its 
own  deepest  principles,  if  it  seeks  relief  from  hostile  perplexity  by 
throwing  itself  into  the  arms  of  obscurantism. 


476  Notes. 

11.  “  Interpret  literally  and  grammatically.” 

u  Illustrate  where  possible  by  reference  to  history,  topography, 
and  antiquities.” 

“  Interpret  with  reference  to  the  context.” 

(i  Elicit  the  full  significance  of  details.” 

These  four  rules  are  given  by  Bishop  Ellicott  in  Aids  to  Faith , 
pp.  426-440,  where  they  will  be  found  expanded  and  illustrated. 

He  adds  the  rules 

“  Interpret  according  to  the  analogy  of  Scripture.” 

“  Interpret  according  to  the  analogy  of  Faith.” 

These  two  last  rules  may  be  reasonably  and  wisely  interpreted, 
but  we  have  sufficiently  seen  in  the  previous  pages  that  they  have 
been  seriously  abused  and  perverted.  The  first  has  been  misap- 
plied  to  force  upon  passages  of  Scripture  wholly  alien  from  each 
other  in  meaning  a  deceptive  semblance  of  identity  of  purport. 
The  other  has  been  used  to  fetter  the  freedom  of  inquiry  by  dictating 
beforehand,  in  each  particular  branch  of  the  Church,  the  conclusion 
at  which  the  expositor  must  arrive. 

12.  One  rule  is  always  valuable  : —  Interpret  in  a  spirit  of  piety 
and  humility. 

“  Scriptura  sacra  non  temerarios  et  superbos  accusatores  sed 
diligentes  et  pios  requirit  lectores.”  Aug.  c.  Adimant.  iii.  6. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  GENERAL  EXEGESIS.* 1 


LECTURE  I. 


Cave,  Scriptores  Ecclesiastici.  London.  .  1688.^ 

Oudin,  De  Scriptoribus  Eeclesiae.  Leipzig.  1722.  . 

R.  Simon,  Histoire  Critique  dn  Vieux  Testament.  Pans.  1680. 

_ Hist.  Crit.  des  Principanx  Commentateurs  dn  Nouveau  Testament. 

Rotterdam.  1693. 

S.  Glass,  Philologia  Sacra.  Amsterdam.  1694. 

Pfaff,  Hist.  Lit.  Theologiae.  Tubingen.  _  1720. 

.T  F.  Buddeus,  Isagoge  Hist.  Theol.  Leipzig.  1/2/. 

J.  G.  Walch,  Bibliotheca  Theol.  Jena.  1757-1/65.  _ 

S.  F.  N.  Morus,  Acroases  super  Hermeneutica.  Leipzig.  1/9/-18UZ. 

J  G.  Rosenmiiller,  Historia  Interpretationis.  5  vols.  Leipzig.  1795-1814. 
J.  A.  Fabricius,  Bibliographia  Antiquana.  Hamburg.  1713 
Schrock,  Christliche  Kirch engeschichte.  45  vols.  1/68-181^. 

Ernesti,  Institutio  Interpretis  Novi  Test.  Leipzig.  1761. 

Bohringer,  Die  Kirche  Christi  und  ihre  Zeugen.  2te  Ausg. 

1873 

Sonntag,  De  Doctrina  Inspirationis.  Heidelberg.  1810. 

Klausen,  Hermeneutik.  Germ.  Transl.  Leipzig.  1841 
Liicke,  Grundriss  d.  Neut.  Hermeneutik.  Gottingen.  181/. 

J,  L.  S.  Lutz,  Biblische  Hermeneutik.  Berne.  1849. 

Lange,  Grundriss  d.  Bibl.  Hermeneutik.  1874. 

Immer,  Hermeneutik.  Wittenb.  18/3.  T ,  .  T  1Qrn 

Diestel  Gesch.  d.  Alt.  Testamentes  in  der  Chnstlichen  Kirche.  Jena.  .  L  >•  • 
Bishop’ Wordsworth,  On  the  Interpretation  of  the  Bible.  Miscellanies  11. 

1-100.  m  T  J 

S  Davidson,  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament.  London. 

Reuss,  Gesch.  d.  Heiligen  Schriften  Neuen  Testaments. 

1874 


Stuttgart. 


1868. 

Braunschweig. 


1882. 


Gesch.  der  Heiligen  Schriften  Alten  Testaments. 


Braunschweig. 


1  It  is  possible  that  some  readers  may  be  gla.l  to  be  referred  to  the  works 
mentioned  in  the  following  list.  I  have  not  attempted  to  make  the  Biblio¬ 
graphy  complete  ;  that  would  require  a  volume.  I  lie  dates  are  often  those 
of  editions  which  1  have  used,  and  the  titles  are  given  m  the  briefest  form^ 
Other  works  of  a  more  special  character  are  referred  to  in  the  notes.  Ouibus 
parum  vel  quibus  nimiuin  est  mihi  ignoscant . 


480 


Bibliography  of  General  Exegesis. 


Ewald  und  Dukes,  Beitrage  zur  Gesch.  d.  Ausleg.  A.  T.  3  vols.  1844. 

L.  Wogue,  Hist,  de  la  Bible  et  de  l’Exegese  jusqu’  a  nos  Jours.  Paris.  1881. 
Hamburger,  Real-Encyklopadie  fur  Bibel  und  Talmud,  vol.  i.  s.  v.  Schrift, 
Scliriften,  Spraclie.  Breslau.  1870  :  vol.  ii.  s.  vv.  Bibel,  Bibeliibersetzung, 
Exegese,  Halacha,  Agada,  Kabbala,  Talmud,  Text  der  Bibel,  &c.  Strelitz. 
1883. 

Herzog,  Real-Encyklopadie  fiir  Prot.  Theol.  u.  Kirche  s .  v.  Hermeneutik,  &c. 
Encyclopaedia  Britannica,  Art.  Hermeneutics. 

Merx,  Eine  Rede  vom  Auslegen  insbesondre  d.  Alten  Testaments.  Halle. 
1879. 

- - Die  Prophetie  cles  Joel  und  ibre  Ausleger  von  der  aeltesten  Zeiten  bis 

zu  den  Reformatoren.  Halle.  1879. 

Scattered  notices  are  to  be  found  in  various  Introductions,  such  as — 

Sixtus  Senensis,  Bibliotheca  Sancta.  Rome.  1586. 

Hottinger,  Thesaurus  Philologicus.  Zurich.  1649. 

Huet,  Demonstratio  Evangelica.  Rouen.  1681. 

J.  G.  Carpzov,  Introd.  ad  Libros  Canonicos.  Leipzig.  1721. 

Eichhorn,  Einleitung.  Leipzig.  1780-1783. 

Michaelis,  Introduction  to  the  Hew  Testament,  ed.  Marsh.  Cambridge. 
1801. 

Jahn,  Introd.  in  Libros  Sacros.  Vienna.  1804. 

Zockler,  Handbuch  d.  Theologischen  Wissenschaften.  Nordlingen.  1883. 
Ladd,  The  Doctrine  of  Sacred  Scripture.  Edinburgh.  1883. 

And  in  the  works  of  Hilgenfeld,  De  Wette,  Kurz,  Oehler,  Baur,  Neander, 
Gieseler,  &c.  ;  and  in  the  various  Biblical  and  Theological  Dictionaries  and 
Encyclopaedias. 


LECTUKE  II. 

Mischna.  Surenhusius.  6  vols.  fol.  Amsterdam.  1698-1703. 

Mishna  Treatises,  De  Sola  and  Raphall.  London.  1843. 

The  Midrashim.  Bibliotheca  Rabbinica,  eine  Sammlung  alter  Midrashim, 
libertragen  von  Dr.  A.  Wunsche.  Leipzig.  1882-1884. 

Le  Talmud  de  Jerusalem.  Traduit  pour  la  premiere  fois,  par  Moise  Schwab. 
Paris.  1871-1883. 

Der  J erusalemische  Talmud  in  Seinen  Haggadischen  Bestandtheilen,  iibertragen 
von  Dr.  A.  Wunsche.  Zurich.  1880. 

Etheridge,  Translation  of  the  Targums  to  the  Pentateuch.  London.  1862- 
1884. 

FI.  Josephi  Opera,  ed.  Haverkamp.  Amsterdam.  1726.  ed.  Richter. 
Leipzig.  1826. 

Maimonides,  More  Nevochim.  (Ductor  Perplexorum. )  ed.  Buxtorf.  Basle, 
1629. 

Raymond  Martin,  Pugio  Fidei.  Paris.  1651. 

EisenmengCr,  Entdecktes  Judenthum.  Ixonigsberg  Ed.  1711. 

J.  Buxtorf,  Synagoga  Judaica.  Basle.  1604. 

- De  Abbreviaturis  Hebraicis.  Basle.  1613. 

Wagenseil,  Tela  Ignea  Satanae.  Amsterdam.  1681. 

Ewald,  Abodali  Zarah.  Niirnberg.  1856. 

Lightfoot,  Works.  Ed.  Pitman.  London.  1822-1825. 

Schbttgen,  Horae  Hebraicae.  Dresden.  1733. 

Meuschen,  Nov.  Test,  ex  Talmude  illustratum.  Leipzig.  1736. 

J.  J.  Buxtorf,  Lexicon  Clialdaicum,  Talmudicum  et  Rabbinicum.  Basle. 
1639. 


481 


Bibliography  of  General  Exegesis. 


Vitringa,  De  Synagoga  Yetere.  Franeker.  1696. 

Waehner,  Antiquitates  Ebraeomm.  Gottingen.  1743. 

J.  C.  Wolf,  Bibliotheca  Hebraea.  1715-1735. 

Beer,  Gesch.  d.  religiosen  Secten  d.  Juden.  Berlin.  1822. 

Fiirst,  Kultur-  und  Literatur-Geschichte  der  Juden  m  Asien.  Leipzig. 

1849. 

Fiirst,  Der  Talmud  in  Seiner  Nichtigkeit.  Warsaw.  1848. 

Hirsckfeld,  Halachische  Exegese.  Berlin.  1840. 

- Hagadisclie  Exegese.  Berlin.  .  1847. 

Zunz,  Gottesdienstliche  Vortrage.  Berlin.  1832. 

-  Synagogal.  Poesie  d.  Mittelalters.  Berlin.  1855.  h 

Hamburger,  Real-Encykl.  fiir  Bibel  und  Talmud.  Abth.  i.  Breslau.  1870. 

Abth.  ii.  Strelitz.  1883.  T  ^  . 

L.  Wogue.  Hist,  de  la  Bible  et  l’Exegese  Biblique  jusqu  a  nos  Jours.  Pans. 

1881 

Low  nnSDn  .  Praktische  Einleitung  und  Gesch.  d.  Schriftauslegung. 
Gross-Kanischa.  1855. 

Chiarini,  Theorie  du  Judaisme.  Paris.  1830. 

Weber.  System  der  Altsynagogalen  Theologie.  Leipzig.  1880. 

Talmudische  Studien,  R.  Joshua  ben  H’anania.  Berlin.  No  date. 
Friedlander,  Geschichtsbilder  aus  der  Zeit  der  Tanaiten  und  Amoraer.  Biunn. 

1879.  _  .  1Q_. 

Weill,  Le  Judaisme,  ses  Dogmes  et  sa  Mission.  Pans.  1866. 

Revue  des  Etudes  Juives.  Paris.  1885. 

Encycl.  d.  Sciences  religieuses.  Art.  Talmud. 

Derenbourg,  Hist,  de  la  Palestine  d’apres  les  Talmuds.  Ians.  186/. 
Neubauer,  La  Geographie  du  Talmud.  Paris.  1868. 

Wellhausen,  Die  Pharisaer  und  die  Sadducaer.  Greifwald.  1874. 

- Geschichte  Israels.  Berlin.  1878. 

Ginsburg,  The  Massorali  Ha  Massoreth  of  Elias  Levita.  London.  1867. 

Trenel,  Yie  de  Hillel.  1867.  . 

Delitzsch,  Jesus  und  Hillel.  Erlangen.  3rd  edition.  1879. 

Jost,  Geschichte  des  Judenthums.  Leipzig.  1859. 

Gratz,  Geschichte  der  Juden.  Leipzig.  1871.  _ 

Herzfeld,  Geschichte  des  Yolkes  Israel.  Leipzig.  1863. 

Geiger,  Das  Judenthum  und  seine  Geschichte.  Breslau.  2nd  edition.  1865. 
Jahn,  Archaeologia  Biblica.  Ed.  Upham.  Oxford.  1836. 

Munter,  Der  Judische  Krieg  unter  d.  Kaisern  Trajan  und  Hadrian.  18—1. 
Ewald,  Gesch.  d.  Yolkes  Israel,  vol.  v.  3rd  ed.  Gottingen.  1867. 

Milman,  Hist,  of  the  Jews,  vols.  ii.  and  iii.  London.  1863. 

Eisenlohr,  Das  Volk  Israel.  Leipzig.  1856. 

Schiirer,  Neutest  Zeitgeschichte.  Leipzig.  1874. 

Kuenen,  The  Religion  of  Israel.  E.  Tr.  Edinburgh.  1874. 

Stein schneider,  Jewish  Literature.  London.  1857.  A  translation  of  the 
Article  in  Ersch  und  Gruber. 

L.  Dukes,  Rabbinische  Blumenlese.  Leipzig.  1844. 

W.  Robertson  Smith,  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church.  Edinburgh. 


_ Lectures  on  the  Old  Testament,  Edinburgh.  1884. 

Dr.  McCaul,  Old  Paths.  London..  1854. 

Barclay,  The  Talmud.  London.  1878. 

Allen,  Modern  Judaism.  London.  1830. 

Margoliouth,  Modern  Judaism.  1843. 

Hershon,  Talmudic  Miscellany.  London.  1880. 

_ Genesis  with  a  Talmudic  Commentary.  London.  1883.*  1 


1  My  references  to  this  book  will  not  always  exactly  coincide  with  those 
of  the  published  volume,  because  I  used  an  unpublished  copy. 

I  I 


482 


Bibliography  of  General  Exegesis. 

Hershon,  Treasures  of  the  Talmud.  London.  1882. 

Etheridge,  Hebrew  Literature.  London.  1856. 

Deutsch,  Lit.  Remains.  London.  1874. 

C.  Taylor,  Sayings  of  the  Jewish  Fathers.  Cambridge.  1877. 

Edersheim,  Temple  Services.  London.  1874. 

Duschak,  Flavius  Josephus  u.  die  Tradition.  Wien.  1864. 

BOOKS  ON  THE  QABBALA. 

Reuchlin,  De  Verbo  Mirifico.  Basle.  1494. 

_ De  Arte  Cabbalistica.  Hagenau.  1517. 

Raymond  Lully,  De  Auditu  Cabbalistico.  Stiash.  1651. 

Kircher,  (Edipus  TEgyptiacus.  Rome.  1635. 

Jellinek,  Beitrage  zur  Gesch.  d.  Kabbalah.  Leipzig.  1852.  . 

Franck,  La  Kabbale.  Paris.  1843.  Uebersetzt  vom  A.  Jellinek.  Leipzig. 

1844. 

Ginsburg,  The  Kabbalah,  its  Doctrines,  Development,  and  Literature.  London. 
1865. 

- Coheleth,  London.  1861. 

Munk,  Melanges  de  Philos.  Juive  et  Arabe.  Paris.  1859. 


LECTURE  III. 


Hody,  DeBibl.  Text  Originalibus.  Oxon.  1715. 

Frankel,  Vorstudien  zu  d.  Septuaginta.  Leipzig.  1841. 

Philonis  Opera,  ed.  Richter.  1828-1830  [containing  the  Fragments  discovered 

by  Mai  and  Aucher]. 

Philonis  Opera,  ed.  Mangey.  2vols.  London.  1742. 

Tischendorf,  Philonea  Inedita.  Leipzig.  1868.  . 

Planck,  De  Principiis  et  Causis  Interpretations  Philomacse  Allegoncae. 


Gottingen.  1806. 

Delaunay,  Philon  d’Alexandrie.  Paris..  1867. 

Grossmann,  Quaestiones  Philoneae.  Leipzig.  1829. 

Siegfried,  Philo  von  Alexandria.  Jena.  1875.  . 

_ On  Philo’s  use  of  the  LXX.  in  Hilgenfeld’s  Zeitschntt.  1873. 

Gfrorer,  Philo  und  die  Alexandr.  Theosophie.  Stuttgart.  1831. 

Dahne,  Gesch.  Darstellung  der  Judisch-Alexandrinischen  Religions-Philosophie. 


Halle.  1834. 

Fiirst,  Bibl.  Judaica.  Leipzig.  1849-1863. 

Bartolocci,  Bibl.  Rabbinica.  Rome.  1693. 

Munk,  Palestine.  Paris.  No  date. 

Guericke,  De  Schola  Alexandrina.  Halae.  .  1824-1825. 

Jowett,  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians,  &c.,  i.  363-417.  London.  18a5. 

J.  G.  Muller,  Des  Juden  Philo  Buch  von  d.  Weltschopfung.  Berlin. 


Matter,  Essai  Historique  sur  l’ficole  d’Alexandrie.  Paris.  1820. 

Drummond,  Philo  :  Principles  of  the  Jewish  Alexandrian  Philosophy . 
London.  1877. 

Neander,  Ch.  History  (E.  T.),  i.  65-93.  Edinburgh.  1851. 

Hausrath,  Neutest  Zeitg.  Die  Zeit  d.  Apostel,  i.  123-1/1.  ^Heidelberg.  18/9. 
Dollinger,  Judenthum  u.  Heidenthum.  Regensburg..  1857. 

Lagarde,  Anmerkungen  zur  Gr.  Uebersetzung.  Leipzig.  1863. 

Wellhausen,  Text  der  Bucher  Samuel.  Gottingen.  1871. 


483 


Bibliography  of  General  Exegesis. 

Hollenberg,  Der  Character  d.  Alex.  Uebersetzung.  Moers.  18/6. 

Dopke,  Hermeneutik  d.  Neutest.  Scbriftst.  Leipzig.  1829. 

Reuss,  Theologie  Chretienne.  3rd  ed.  Paris.  1864. 

Grinfield,  Apology  for  the  Septuagint.  London.  1850. 

Herzog’s  Cyclopaedia,  s.  vv.  Hellenism,  Pliilo. 

Lipsius,  Alex.  Religions-Pliilosopliie.  Schenkel,  Bibel  Lexicon,  i.  8/. 

Dr.  Deutscli,  s.  v.  “Dispersion”  in  Kitto’s  Cyclopaedia. 

Canon  Westcott,  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Gospels.  Revised  edition. 

1867. 

Kuenen,  Rel.  of  Israel,  iii.  162-223.  E.  Tr.  London.  1875. 

Keim,  Jesu  von  Nazara.  i.  208-225.  Zurich.  1867. 

Jost,  Gesch.  d.  Israeliten.  iii.  174-181.  Berlin.  1822. 

- -  Gesch.  d.  Judenthums  und  seiner  Sekten.  Leipzig.  1857.  i.  368- 

402. 

Gratz,  Gesch.  d.  Juden,  iii.  296-308.  Leipzig.  1863. 

Daline  in  Ersch  und  Gruber,  s.  v.  Philo. 

Zockler  in  Herzog,  s.  v.  Philo. 

Kingsley,  Alexandria  and  her  Schools.  Cambridge.  1854. 

Vacherot,  Hist,  de  l’^cole  d’Alexandrie.  Paris.  1846. 

Ueberweg,  Hist,  of  Philos  i.  222-231.  E.  Tr.  3rd  ed.  London.  1880. 
Ewald,  Gesch,  d.  Volkes  Isr.  vi.  257-312.  _  Gottingen.  1868. 

Olshausen,  Ein  Wort  iiber  tiefern  Schriftsinn.  Ivonigsberg.  1824. 


LECTURE  IV. 

For  Patristic  methods  of  interpretation,  see 
Origen,  De  Principiis.  Lib.  iv. 

Adrianus,  Elcrayoiyy)  els  ras  Oelas  ypacpas  (Critici  Sacri,  viii.  11).  Ed.  Hoschel. 
Wien.  1602. 

Eucherius,  Liber  formularum.  Bibl.  Max.  Patr.,  vi.  522. 

Tichonius,  De  Septem  Regulis.  Bibl.  Max.  Patr.,  vi.  49.  Gallandi,  viii. 
107. 

Hieronymus,  De  Optimo  Genere  Interpretandi.  Ep.  101,  ad  Pammach. 
Augustinus,  De  Doctrina  Christiana,  iii.  iv.  Opp.  Ed.  Bened.,  t.  iii. 
Junilius,  De  Partibus  Legis  Divinae.  Bibl.  Max.  Patr.,  x.  339.  Ed.  Kihn. 
Friburg.  1880. 

Isidore  of  Pelusium,  Epistolae  de  Interpret.  Div.  Script.  Bibl.  Max.  Patr. 
vii. 

Cassiodorus,  De  Institutione  Div.  Literarum.  Opp.  ii.  509  sq.  Migne,  lxx. 

1105. 

Whitby,  Dissert  de  Sac.  Script.  Interpretatione.  London.  1714. 

Cave,  Lives  of  the  Fathers.  Ed.  Cary.  Oxon.  1850. 

J.  G.  Walcli,  Bibliotheca  Patristica.  Ed.  Danz.  1834. 

Flacius,  Clavis  Script.  Sacr.,  pp.  134-145.  Basle.  1609. 

Behringer,  Die  Kirche  Christi  und  ihre  Zeugen,  2te  Aufiage.  Stuttgart. 
1873. 

Ewald,  Gesch.  d.  Volkes  Israel,  vii.  Gottingen.  3rd  ed.  1868. 

Huber,  Die  Plhlosophie  der  Kirchenvater.  Munich.  1859. 


a 


1  The  literature  on  the  subject  of  this  Lecture  is  immense.  I  only  indicate 
few  of  the  books  and  editions  which  will  be  found  most  useful. 

I  I  2 


484 


Bibliography  of  General  Exegesis. 

Barbeyrac,  Traite  de  la  Morale  des  Peres.  1728. 

Mohler,  Patrologie,  ed.  Riethmayer.  Regensb.  1840. 

Bisbop  Kaye.  Some  Account  of  the  Writings  and  Opinions  of  Clement  of 
Alexandria.  London.  1835. 

Neander,  Antignosticus,  or  Spirit  of  Tertullian.  E.  Tr.  London.  1864. 
Donaldson,  The  Apostolical  Fathers.  London.  1874. 

F.  Yogi,  Die  heilige  Schriften  u.  ihre  Interpretation  durch  die  h.  Vater. 
Augsb.  1836. 

Cotelerius,  Patres  Apostolici.  Amsterdam.  1724. 

Lightfoot,  Epistles  of  Clement.  Cambridge.  1869-1877. 

- Ignatius  and  Polycarp.  London.  1885. 

J.  Temple  Chevalier,  Clement  of  Rome,  &c.,  with  Introduction.  Cambridge. 
1833. 

Philotheos  Bryarnios,  rov  KA rijAevTos.  At  Svo  tt pbs  KopivOtovs  eTrurroActi. 

Constant.  1875. 

Irenaeus,  ed.  Stieren.  Leipzig.  1853. 

- ed.  Harvey.  Cambridge.  1857. 

Hilgenfeld,  Hermae  Pastor.  Leipzig.  1881. 

C.  H.  Hoole,  The  Shepherd  of  Hennas.  London.  1870. 

Otto,  Corpus  Apologetarum.  Jena.  1847. 

Semisch,  Justin  der  Martyrer.  Breslau.  1842. 

M.  von  Engelhardt,  Das  Christenthum  Justins  d.  Martyr.  Erlangen.  1878. 
Bishop  Kaye,  Some  Account  of  the  Writings  and  Opinions  of  Justin  Martyr. 

Cambridge.  3rd  edition.  1853. 

Freppel,  Des  Apologistes  Chretiens  clu  lie  Siecle.  Paris.  1860. 

E.  de  Pressense,  Hist,  des  trois  premiers  Siecles.  Paris.  1870. 

Renan,  Les  Evangiles.  Paris.  1877. 

- L’Eglise  Chretienne.  Paris.  1879. 

Keim,  Rom  und  das  Christenthum.  Berlin.  1881. 

Origenis  Opera  ed.  De  La  Rue.  Paris.  1759. 

- ed.  Huet.  Rouen.  1668. 

Huet,  Origeniana.  Colon.  1685. 

Redepenning,  Origenes.  Bonn.  1846. 

Ernesti,  De  Origene.  Opusc.,  p.  288  sq.  1776. 

Guericke,  De  Schola  quae  Alexandriae  floruit  Catechetica.  Halle.  2  parts. 
1824-1825. 

M.  J.  Denis,  De  la  Philosophie  d’Origene.  Paris.  1884. 

Tertulliani  quae  supersunt  omnia.  Ed.  Oehler.  Leipzig.  1853. 

Hauck,  Tertullian’s  Leben  und  Schriften.  Erlangen.  1877. 

Ronsch,  Das  Neue  Testament  Tertullians.  Leipzig.  1871. 

Bishop  Kaye,  Writings  of  Tertullian.  3rd  edition.  London.  1845. 

H.  Weiss,  Die  Grossen  Kappadokier  als  Exegeten.  Braunsberg.  1872. 

Rupp,  Gregorius  von  Nyssa.  Leipzig.  1834. 

Ullmann,  Gregorius  von  Kazianz.  Darmstadt.  1825. 

F.  Lucke,  Quaestiones  Didymianae.  Gottingen.  1829. 

Daille,  On  the  Right  Use  of  the  Fathers.  E.  Tr.  London.  1841. 

J.  J.  Blunt,  The  Right  Use  of  the  Early  Fathers.  London.  1857. 

Smith  and  Wace,  Dictionary  of  Christian  Biography.  London.  1877-1882v 
Tillemont,  Memoires  pour  servir  h  l’Hist.  Eccl.  des  Six  Premiers  Siecles. 
Paris.  1712. 

R.  Simon,  Hist.  Critique  du  Yieux  Testament.  Amsterdam.  1685. 

- Des  Versions  du  N.  Testament.  Rotterdam.  1690. 

- Du  Texte  du  N.  Testament.  Rotterdam.  1689. 

- Des  Principaux  Coinmentateurs  du  N.  Testament.  Rotterdam. 

1693. 

- Nouvelles  Observations.  Paris.  1695. 

Baur,  Church  History.  E.  Tr.  London.  1878. 

Alb.  de  Broglie,  L’Eglise  et  l’empire  romain  au  4me  siecle.  4th  ed.  Paris. 
1868. 


Bibliography  of  General  Exegesis. 


485 


Schaff,  History  of  the  Christian  Church.  Edinburgh.  1884. 

Hergenrother,  Handb.  d.  allgem.  Kirchengeschichte.  Freiburg.  2nd  edition. 

D.  Conybeare,  Analyt.  Exam,  of  the  Writings  of  the  Christian  Fathers. 

Bampton  Lectures.  1839.  .  .  ,  c  v 

Estlander,  De  Usu  S.S.  in  Eccl.  Cath.  duobus  pnmis  post  Christum  Seculis. 

Helsingf.  1829.  _  ,  r  • 

Ebert,  Gesch.  d.  Literat.  d.  lateinischen  Mittelalters  nn  Abendlande.  Leipzig. 

1874.  Vol.  ii.  1880.  t  x  ,  , .  n 

H.  A.  Woodham,  Tert.  Liber  Apologet.  with  Notes  and  Introduction.  Cam¬ 
bridge.  1850.  .  r  4-*  \ 

Cypriani  Opera,  ed.  Hartel.  (Corpus  Scrip.  Eccles.  Latin.) 

Freppel,  St.  Cyprien.  2nd  edition.  Paris.  1873. 

dementis  Alex.  Opera,  ed.  Potter.  9xonh  1Qt-, 

Freppel,  Clement  d’ Alexandria.  Paris.  Revised  edition.  18/  . 

Miinter,  De  Schola  Antiochena.  1814. 

Hergenrother,  Die  Antioch.  Schule.  Wurzburg..  1866 

Sieffert,  Theod.  Mopsuestenus  Yet.  Test,  sobne  interpret.  Vmdex.  Regensb., 
1827 

H.  B.  Swete,  Theod.  Ep.  Mops,  in  Epp.  B.  Pauli  Commentarii.  Cambridge. 
1882 

Ivilin,  Die  Bedeutung  d.  antioch.  Schule.  Weissenburg.  18d9* 

S.  Chrysostomi  Opera.  Ed.  Bern,  de  Montfaucon.  Ians.  1/18  1738. 

Forster,  Chrysostomus.  Gotha.  1869. 

W.  A.  Stephens,  Life  and  Times  of  St.  Chrysostom.  London.  18/2. 

E.  ’  Binder,  Etudes  sur  Theodoret.  Geneva.  1844  . 

C.  V.  Lengerke,  De  Ephraemi  Syri  Arte  Hermeneutica.  Regiom.  1831. 
Hieronymi  Opera,  ed.  Yallarsi.  Yerona.  1734-1742. 

Clericus,  Quaest.  Hieronymianae.  Amstelod.  1/00. 

Engelstoft,  Hieronymus  Stridonensis.  Havre.  1/9/. 

Zbckler,  Hieronymus.  Gotha.  1865. 

A.  Thierry,  St.  Jerome.  Paris.  1867. 

Cutts,  St.  Jerome.  London.  1877.  ,,  ,T  , 

Trench,  Augustine  as  an  Interpr.  of  Scripture.  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 

Bindemann,  Der  Heilige  Augustinus.  Berlin.  1844-1869 
Nourisson,  La  Philos,  de  St.  Augustin.  _  2nd  ed.  Pans.  1866. 

Flottes,  Etudes  sur  St.  Augustin.  Pans.  1861. 


LECTURE  V. 


SOME  ORIGINAL  AUTHORITIES. 

J.  Scotus  Erigena,  De  Divisione  Naturae  Migne,  t.  122. 

Joh.  Sarisburiensis,  Opera.  Migne,  t.  199 

Rupertus  Tuitensis,  Praef.  in  Comment,  m  Joann.  Opera.  \  eniee,  l/48-l/o0. 
Hugo  de  Sto.  Yictore,  Opera.  Migne,  tt.  175-1/7. 

Bonaventurae  Opera.  Ed.  Peltier.  Pans.  lbbl. 

St.  Thomas  Aquinas,  Praef.  in  Psaimos,  Praef.  m  Hiob. 

_ _ _  Sumrna.  Cap.  de  Scriptuns. 

Petri  Abaelardi,  Sic  et  Non-  Q  . 

V.  Cousin,  CEuvres  in^dits  d  Abelard.  Ians.  lfe8°- 
Petr.  Lombardi,  11.  iv.  Sententiarum.  Migne,  t.  i92. 


486 


Bibliography  of  General  Exegesis. 

Bernard!  Opera.  Ed.  Mabillon.  Paris.  1719. 

Nicolai  Lyrani  Prologi. 

Gerson,  Propositions  de  Sensu  Literal!  Opera.  Ed.  Du  Pin.  Antwerp. 
1706. 

Herolt,  Sermones  et  Exempla. 

Vitalius  a  Furno,  Speculum  Morale.  Lyons.  1513. 

Badius  Ascensius,  Allegoriarum  Bibliorum.  1520. 

Coppenstein,  Dispositio  Sermonum  ad  Sens.  Literalem  et  saepe  Mysticum  de 
Aquinate  et  Bonaventura. 

Whitaker,  Disputation  on  Holy  Scripture.  Parker  Society.  1849. 

Goldast,  Monarchia.  Frankfort.  1640. 


SOME  GENERAL  HISTORIES. 

Brucker,  Historia  Grit.  Philosophise,  t.  iii.  Leipzig.  1743. 

Ampere,  Hist.  Lit.  de  la  France  avant  le  Douzieme  Siecle.  Paris.  1839. 
Bouquet,  Rerum  Gallic,  et  Francic.  Scriptores.  Paris.  1752. 

Herman  Reuter,  Gesch.  der  Rel.  Aufklarung  in  Mittelalter.  Berlin.  1875. 

S.  R.  Maitland,  The  Dark  Ages.  London.  1844. 

Hampden,  Bampton  Lectures.  Oxford.  1832. 

- Life  of  Thomas  Aquinas.  Enc.  Metropol.  1848. 

Kaulich,  Gesch.  d.  Scholast.  Philosophie.  Prag.  1853. 

Stockl,  Gesch.  d.  Philos,  d.  Mittelalters.  Mayence.  1866. 

Prantl,  Gesch.  d.  Logik.  Leipzig.  1867. 

Guizot,  Hist,  de  la  Civilisation  en  France. 

Haureau,  De  la  Philos.  Scolastique.  Paris.  1850. 

Leon  Maitre,  Les  Ecoles  de  POccident. 

Hallam,  Middle  Ages.  London.  1855. 

- Hist,  of  European  Literature.  London.  1856. 

Saisset,  Essais  de  la  Philosophie  Religieuse.  1859. 

Sir  J.  Stephen,  Lectures  on  the  History  of  France.  London.  1857. 

R.  A.  Vaughan,  Hours  with  the  Mystics.  London.  1680. 

Werner,  Die  Scholastik  d.  Spateren  Mittelalters.  Wirn.  1881. 

Ueberweg,  Hist,  of  Philosophy.  E.  Tr.  London.  1880. 

F.  D.  Maurice,  Mediaeval  Philosophy.  Encyclop.  Metropolitana.  1857. 
Colet  on  the  Celestial  Hierarchies  of  Dionysius.  Ed.  Lupton.  London.  1869. 
Figuier,  Vie  des  Savants  Illustres.  Paris.  1867. 

J.  Bass  Mullinger,  The  University  of  Cambridge.  1873. 


SOME  MONOGRAPHS. 

* 

Binder,  De  Schol.  Theol.  Tubingen.  1624. 

Lud.  Vives,  De  Causis  Corrupt.  Artium.  Antwerp.  1531. 

Thomasius,  Theologia  Scholastica  et  ejus  Initium.  Hist.  Sap.  et  Stult.,  iii. 
p.  225  sq.  Halae.  1693. 

Danaeus,  Prolegom.  in  Lombardi  Sent.  Genevae.  1580. 

Tribbechovius,  De  Doctoribus  Scholasticis.  Ed.  Heumann.  Jena.  1719. 
Ittigius,  De  Bibliotliecis  et  Catenis  Patrum.  Leipzig.  1708. 

Noesselt,  De  Catenis  Patrum  Graecorum.  Halae.  1762. 

Elster,  De  Med.  Aevi  Theol.  Exegetica.  Gottingen.  1855. 

De  Launoy,  De  Varia  Aristotelis  Fortuna  in  Acad.  Parisiensi.  1653. 

Huber,  Joannes  Scotus  Erigena.  Munich.  1861. 

Christlieb,  Leben  und  Lehre  d.  J.  Scotus.  Gotha.  1860. 

Hundeshagen,  De  Agobardi  Vita  et  Scriptis.  Giessen.  1831. 

V.  Cousin,  G£uvres  Inedits  d’ Abelard.  Paris.  1836. 

- Cours  de  Philosophie.  Paris.  1829. 


487 


Bibliography  of  General  Exegesis. 

Remusat,  Abelard.  Paris.  1845. 

M^PeteiSd,  eta  Kritische;  Theolog.  d.  Zwolften  Jahrhunderts. 

Jourdain,  Reckerches  sur-  l'Age  des  Traductions  Lat.  d’Aristote.  Paris. 

_ La  Philos,  de  Thomas  d  Aqum. 

Liebner,  Hugo  de  Sto  Victore.  Leipzig.  1836. 

Engelhard!,  Riqliard  v.  St.  Victor.  Erlangen.  1838. 

Hollenberg,  Stndien  zn  Bonayentura.  _  Berlin. 

Schaarschmidt,  Johannes  Sarisburiensis.  Leipzig.  • 

J.  Cotter  Morison,  Life  and  Times  ot  St.  Bernard.  London.  1863. 

Renan,  Averroes.  Paris.  1851.  .  iqkq 

Mnnk,  Melanges  de  Pliilosophie  Juive  et  Arabe.  Pans.  1859 
F.  C.  Banr,  Christliche  Kirche  des  Mittelalters  Tubingen.  18  . 

Gbrres,  Die  Christliche  Mystik.  Regensb 

Vaunhan  Life  of  St.  Thomas  Aquinas.  London.  18/1. 

Tholnck  De  Thoma  Aq.  et  Abaelardo  S.S.  interpretibus.  Halle.  18T  2- 
R  Lane  Poole.  Illustrations  of  the  History  of  Mediaeval  Thought.  London. 

ML  L^Townsend,  The  Great  Schoolmen  of  the  Middle  Ages.  London.  1881. 
J  Owen,  Evenings  with  the  Sceptics.  London.  188 ■  • 

J.  B.  Mullinger,  The  Schools  of  Charles  the  Great.  London.  18/7. 


LECTURE  YI. 


SOME  ORIGINAL  AUTHORITIES. 

Erasmus,  Ratio  seu  Methodus  perveniendi  ad  V“^£lo9“^701522' 
Luther,  Tractat.  vom  Dolmetschen  IV  elite,  ed.  Walch.,  it.  1/0. 

- - Sendbriefe  vom  Dolmetschen.  Id.  xxi.  309. 

Melanchthon,  Libri  iii.  de  Rhetorics.  1519.  Opera.  Halle  183  . 

_ _ Element®  Rhetorices,  ii.  1536.  Opera.  Halle.  1834  ft. 

Calvin,  Works.  Edinburgh.  1842-1853. 

Matthias  Flacius,  Clavis  Scripturae  Sacra®.  Basle.  1567. 

Bellarminus,  De  Verbo  Del,  11.  iv.  Opera.  Cologne.  1620. 

J.  Gerhard,  De  Legitima  S.S.  Interpretations.  Jena.  1610. 

Canones  et  Decreta  Cone.  Trident.  Sess.  iv.  t,  041 

p  Melanchthon,  Vita  Martini  Lutheri.  Ed.  Neander.  Berlin.  !841' 
t  ’ Cimerarius  Vita  Philippi  Melanchthoms.  Ed.  Neander.  Berlin.  1841. 
O  Contas, ’Vita  Huldnci  Zwinglii.  Ed.  Keander  Berlin  1841. 

Tlieod.  Beza,  Vita  Joli.  Calvtai  Ed.  Neander  Berhm  1841. 

Luther,  Werke.  Ed.  Walch.  Halle  1  MO-1 7 52. 

_ _ .  Erlangen  ed.  1826-1855. 

Corpus  Refonnatorum,  ed.  Bretschneider.  Halle.  1834-1848. 

Thuanus,  Hist.  Sui  Temporis.  London.  1 1  -3. 

Grotius,  Annales.  1658. 


488 


Bibliography  of  General  Exegesis. 


SOME  GENERAL  HISTORIES,  &C. 

Mayerhoff,  J.  Reuclilin  und  Seine  Zeit.  Berlin.  1830. 

Fabricius,  Loci  Communes  D.  Mart.  Lutlier.  1651. 

Jortin,  Life  of  Erasmus.  London.  1806. 

Drummond,  Erasmus,  his  Life  and  Character.  London.  1873. 

Kostlin,  Life  of  Luther.  E.  Tr.  London.  1883. 

- -  Luther’s  Theologie.  2te  Ausg.  Stuttgart.  1883.  - 

Paul  Henry,  Das  Leben  Joh.  Calvins.  Hamburg.  1835-1838. 

A.  Wratislaw,  John  Hus.  London.  1882. 

Thos.  M‘Crie,  The  Early  Years  of  J.  Calvin.  London.  1880. 

Ullmann,  Die  Reformatoren  vor  der  Reformation.  1842.  E.  Tr.  1855. 

Knrz,  Hist,  of  the  Christian  Church  from  the  Reformation.  E.  Tr.  Edinburgh. 
1864. 

Hagenbach,  Hist,  of  the  Reformation.  2  vols.  E.  Tr.  Edinburgh.  1878. 
Merle  d’Aubigne,  Hist,  de  la  Reformation. 

Dorner,  Hist,  of  Protestant  Theology.  2  vols.  E.  Tr.  Edinburgh.  1871. 
Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom. 

Beard,  Hibbert  Lectures.  London.  1883. 

G.  P.  Fisher,  Hist,  of  the  Reformation.  Hew  York.  1873. 

Dollinger,  Die  Reformation.  1848. 

Seebohm,  Oxford  Reformers.  London.  1869. 

Tulloch,  Leaders  of  the  Reformation.  Edinburgh.  1859. 


SOME  MONOGRAPHS. 

Graf,  Essai  sur  la  Yie  et  les  Edits  de  Lefevre  d’Etaples.  Strasburg.  1842. 
Geiger,  Das  Studium  d.  hebr.  Sprache  in  16ten  Jahrliundert.  Brussels.  1870. 
Romberg,  Die  Lehre  Luther’s  von  der  lieiligen  Schrift.  "Wittenb.  1868. 
Preger,  Flacius  Illyricus  und  Seine  Zeit.  Erlangen.  1861. 

Gerold,  Luther  Considere  comma  Exegete.  Strasbourg.  1866. 

Tliilo,  Melanchthon  im  Dienste  an  heil.  Schriften.  Berlin.  1860. 

Otto,  De  Y.  Strigelio  Liberioris  Mentis  in  Eccl.  Luther.  Yindice.  Jena.  1843. 
Tholuck,  Die  Yerdienste  Calvins  als  Ausleger.  Yermischte  Schriften,  ii. 
Aegid.  Hunnius,  Calvinus  Judaisans.  Yit.  1593. 


LECTUKE  VII. 

The  Hermeneutic  manuals  of  this  epoch  are  very  numerous  and  represent 
all  the  sects  and  schools  of  thought.  For  the  names  of  many  not  here  men¬ 
tioned  see  Reuss,  Gesch.  d.  Heil.  Schrift,  pp.  292-311  ;  Diestel,  Gesch.  d.  A. 
T.,  pp.  555-781  ;  Kleinert,  Abriss  d.  Einleit.  zum  A.  T.  1878  ;  Hertwig, 
Tabellen  zur  Einl.  ins  N.  T.  1872.  Winer. 

SOME  ORIGINAL  AUTHORITIES. 

Arminius,  De  Sensu  et  Interpr.  S.  Script.  1683. 

Calixtus,  Apparatus  Tlieologicus.  Helmstadt.  1628. 

Calovius,  Biblia  Illustrata.  Frankfort.  1672. 

Quenstedt,  Systema  Theologicum.  Wittenb.  1696. 


489 


Bibliography  of  General  Exegesis. 

J.  Gerhard,  De  Legit.  S.S.  Interpretatione.  Jena.  1610. 

S.  Glassius,  Pkilologia  Sacra.  Amsterdam  1694. 

Spinoza,  Tractatus  Theologico-politicus.  Hamb.  16/0. 

Sixtinus  Amama,  Anti- Barbaras.  Amsterd.  1628. 

Dannhauer,  Hermeneutica  Sacra.  Strasbnrg.  16o  . 

Pfeiffer,  Herm.  Sacra.  Enlarged  by  Carpzov.  1690. 

Waterland,  Scripture  Vindicated. 

L.  Meyer,  Philosophia  Scripturae  Interpres.  1666. 

Bp.  Wilkins,  Ecclesiastes,  p.  59.  List  of  Works  on  the  Interpret,  of  Scrip. 
Franke,  Manuductio  ad  Lectionem  Sa.  Scripturae.  Halle.  16 96. 

Clericus,  Praef.  Comment,  in  Gen.  Amsterdam.  1731. 

Rambach,  Instt.  Hermen.  Jena.  1723. 

Beansobre,  Remarques  snr  le  N.  T.  LaHaye.  1/42. 

Werenfels,  Lectiones  Hermeneuticae.  Opera.  Basle,  usz. 

J  A  Bengel,  Gnomon,  Praefatio.  Ed.  2.  Tubingen.  1/59. 


SOME  GENERAL  HISTORIES. 

T.  H.  Schuler,  Gesch.  d.  Schrifterklarung.  Tubingen.  1787. 

Weismann,  lntrod.  in  Memorabilia  Eccl.  Hist.  1718. 

Tholuck,  Das  Akad.  Leben  des  17  Jahrhunderts.  Hamburg.  1854. 

Heppe  Dogmatik  des  Deutsclien  Protestantismus.  Marburg.  185/. 

Pfaff,  lntrod.  in  Historiam  Theol.  Lit.  Tubingen.  1/24. 

Lilienthal,  Biblischer  Archivarius.  1746.  _ 

Meyer,  Gesch.  der  Schrifterklarung.  Gottingen.  1802 

Dr.  Cunningham,  The  Reformers  and  the  Theology  of  the  Reformation. 

Ivurz,  History  of  the  Christian  Church.  E.  Tr.  Edinburgh.  1S64. 

G  J.  Plank,  Gesch.  d.  Prot.  Theol.  Gottingen  1831 
Dorner,  History  of  Prot.  Theology.  E.  Tr.  Edinburgh.  18/1. 

S.  Franck,  Gesch.  d.  Protest.  Theologie.  1862. 

Kahnis,  Gesch.  d.  Deutsclien  Protestantismus.  E.  Tr.  Edinburgh  1856. 
Werner,  Gesch.  der  Kath.  Theol.  seit  dem  Trienter  Concil.  Munchen. 

1366 

Pusey.  Historical  Enquiry.  London.  I82?.  ivqaitqq 

Walch,  Religionsstreit.  innerhalb  der  Luthenschen  Kirche.  1730-173  . 


SOME  MONOGRAPHS. 


Henke,  Georg  Calixt  und. Seine  .Zeit.  Halle.  1853. 

Hossbach,  Spener  und  Seine  Zeit.  1353. 

H  Schmid,  Gesch.  des  Pietismus.  Nordlmgen.  1863. 

Wachter,  J.  A.  Bengel,  Lebensabriss,  Character,  Bnefe,  und  Aussprache. 

Bilfinger,  De  Spinosae  Methodo  Explicandi  S.  Scr.  Jen.  1739. 

Segaar,  De  Grotio  N.  T.  Interprete.  Traj.  1785 
Spangenberg,  Idea  Fidei  Fratrum.  Barby.  1/82  .  . 

Glbckner,  Interpretandi  Ratio  a  J.  J.  Wetstemo  adlnbita.  Leipzig. 


1754. 


490 


Bibliography  of  General  Exegesis. 


LECTURE  VIII. 

The  Hermeneutic  and  indirectly  exegetic  treatises  of  this  epoch  may  be 
counted  by  scores.  The  following  are  only  a  few  of  them,  chiefly  bearing  on 
theory. 


SOME  ORIGINAL  AUTHORITIES. 

Ernesti,  Institutio  Interpretis.  Leipzig.  1761. 

Sender,  Yorhereitung  zur  Theol.  Hermeneutik.  Halle.  1760. 

Wetstein,  Libelli  ad  Crisin  atque  Interpret.  N.  T.,  ed.  Sender.  Halle.  1766. 
Wolfenbiittler  Fragmente.  (Lessing,  Beitriige,  iii.  iv.)  1774-1777. 

J.  E.  Pfeiffer,  Inst.  Herm.  Erlangen.  1771. 

J.  G.  Carpzoy,  Introd.  ad  11.  canon.  Y.  T.  Leipzig.  1857. 

J.  A.  Turretin,  De  S.  S.  Interpret.  Utrecht.  1728. 

Kant,  Hie  Religion  innerhalb  der  Grenzen  d.  blossen  Yernunft.  Ivonigsberg. 
1794. 

Seiler,  Bibl.  Herm.  Erlangen.  1800. 

Herder,  Theol.  Werke.  Weimar. 

Jahn,  Hermeneutica.  Yienna.  1812. 

De  Wette,  Einleitung.  Berlin.  1819. 

Hengstenberg,  Pentateuch,  &c.  Berlin.  1831-1861. 

Ewald,  Gesch.  d.  Yolkes  Israel,  &c.  Gottingen.  1849-1868. 

Baur,  Dogmengeschichte.  Tubingen.  1845-1853. 

Tollner,  Grundriss  einer  Hermeneutik.  Frankfort.  1765. 

Schleiermacher,  Darstellung  d.  theol.  Studiums.  Berlin.  1811. 

- Glaubenslehre.  1821. 

- Hermeneutik.  Lucke.  1838. 

Liicke,  Grundriss  d.  Neutest.  Hermen.  Bonn.  1817. 

Olsliausen,  Ein  Wort  liber  tieferen  Scliriftsinn.  Erlangen.  1824. 

Stier,  Andeutungen.  Leipzig.  1828. 

Strauss,  Streitschriften.  Tubingen.  1838. 

Tlioluck,  Das  A.  T.  im  Neuen.  1836. 

Klausen,  Hermeneutik.  Leipzig.  1841. 

Coleridge,  Confessions  of  an  Enquiring  Spirit. 

Lutz,  Bibl.  Hermen.  Berne.  1849. 

Reuss,  Die  Gesch.  d.  heil.  Schriften.  Braunschweig.  1882. 

Cellerier,  Manuel  d’Hermeneutique.  Geneve.  1852. 

J.  P.  Lange,  Grundriss  der  Bibl.  Hermeneutik.  Heidelberg.  1878. 

S.  Davidson,  Sacred  Hermeneutics.  Edinburgh.  1843. 


SOME  MONOGRAPHS. 

J.  Y.  Voorst,  De  J.  A.  Ernestio  Interprete.  Leyden.  1804. 

Semler,  Lebensbeschreibung.  Halle.  1781. 

Noesselt,  De  Semlero  ejusque  Ingenio.  Rigae.  1792. 

Strauss,  H.  S.  Reimarus  und  Seine  Schutz-schrift.  Leipzig.  1861. 

W.  A.  Teller,  Ernesti’s  Yerdienste  um  Theologie  u.  Religion.  Leipzig.  1783. 
A.  C.  Stauss,  Utrum  Philosophia  Kantii  Scripturae  interpret,  admitti  possit  ? 
V  it.  1/95. 


491 


Bibliography  of  General  Exegesis. 


Stahelin,  De  Wette  nach  Seiner  Theolog.  Wirksamkeit. 
Backmann,  Hengstenberg  nach  s.  Leben  u.  Wirken. 
Kenan,  CEuvres.  1863-1883. 

Hort’s  Essay  on  Coleridge.  Camb.  Essays.  1856. 
Many  other  treatises  will  be  referred  to  in  the  notes. 


Basle. 

Gutersloh. 


1880. 

1879. 


SOME  GENERAL  HISTORIES. 


Dr.  A.  S.  Farrar,  Critical  History  of  Free  Thought.  Bampton  Lectures. 
London.  1862. 

Lecky,  History  of  Rationalism.  London.  1866 
Hagenbacli,  German  Rationalism.  E.  Tr.  Edinburgh.  1885. 

Donier,  Hist,  of  Prot.  Theology.  E.  Tr.  Edinburgh  18/1. 

Hundeshagen,  Der  Deutsche  Protestantismus.  Darmstadt.  18.  . 

Tholuck,  Gesch.  d.  Rationalismus.  Berlin.  1865 :  and  Vermischte  Schriften, 


ii.  Hamburg.  1839. 

C.  Schwarz,  Zur  Gesch.  d.  Heuesten  Theologie.  1856. 


4th  edition.  Leipzig. 


Rosenmuller,  Handbuch  fur  die  Litterat.  d.  Bibl. 
Gottingen.  1800. 

Hansel,  Bampton  Lectures.  London.  1858.  . 

F.  C.  Baur,  Kirchengesch.  d.  19ten  Jahrh.  Tubingen. 

1879. 


Kritik  und  Exegese. 


1853.  E.  Tr.  London. 


INDEX. 


INDEX. 


A. 

1b£lard,  his  work  and  influence  in 
scholastic  exegesis,  259  ;  by  his  Sic 
ct  Non  he  helped  to  break  down  the 
authority  of  tradition,  259  ;  Remu- 
sat’s  remark  regarding,  259  n.  ;  he 
heads  his  sections  boldly,  259  n.  ;  he 
writes  like  a  man  of  genius,  260  ;  his 
works,  and  authorities  on  them, 
260  ns.  ;  the  scholastic  method  of 
dialectics  mainly  due  to  him,  261  ; 
his  motto,  266  n.  ;  retires  into  the 
monastery  of  St.  Gildas  de  Rliuys, 
301  ;  his  share  in  the  origin  of  schol¬ 
asticism,  467  ;  account  of  the  Sic  ct 
Non  of,  468 

Abravanel,  his  merits  as  a  Jewish  com¬ 
mentator,  464 

Accommodation,  the  doctrine  of  the 
Alexandrian  teachers  as  to,  187  and  n. 
Adrian,  115  n. 

Adrian  VI.,  311  n.,  319  n. 

Aeneas,  296  n. 

Agobard  of  Lyons,  Archbishop,  an  in¬ 
dependent  mediaeval  thinker,  252  n. ; 
he  protests  against  the  duel  and 
ordeal,  252  n.  ;  and  against  silencing 
the  Prophets,  369  and  n. 

Ahijali,  writer  of  one  of  the  lost  sacred 
books,  7 
Albam,  103 

Albertus,  his  system  of  scholastic  exe¬ 
gesis,  267  ;  the  extent  of  his  works, 
and  remarks  on  them,  267  n.  ;  his 
exegesis  chiefly  derived  at  third  or 
fourth  hand  from  the  Catenae  or 
glosses,  268  n.  ;  his  self-denial,  301 
Albo,  Joseph,  denies  that  Messianism  is 
a  Jewish  doctrine,  67  n. 

Alciati,  349 
Algazel,  280  n. 


Aleph  and  Beth,  remarks  on  the  Hebrew 
letters,  36 

Alexander,  what  the  worshippers  of 
Apollo  did  when  Tyre  was  besieged 
by,  8  ;  the  Jews  pacify  the  wrath  of, 
54  ;  effects  of  the  conquests  of,  114  ; 
benefit  conferred  on  the  world  by 
the  founding  of  Alexandria  by,  114  ; 
authorities  on  the  civilising  mission 
of,  114  n. 

Alexander,  the  Alabarch,  wrote  a  book 
to  prove  that  animals  are  endowed 
with  reason,  138  n. 

Alexander  VI.,  Pope,  309,  312 

Alexandria,  fusion  of  Greek  philosophy 
and  Jewish  religion  took  place  in, 
114  ;  benefit  conferred  on  the  world 
by  Alexander  in  founding,  114  : 
opinions  of  various  authors  on,  114  n. ; 
position  and  commercial  advantages 
of,  114  ;  its  literary  and  other  at¬ 
tractions,  114,  115  ;  number  and 
influence  of  the  Jews  in,  115  ;  gran¬ 
deur  of  the  Great  Synagogue  of,  115 
and  n.  ;  becomes  the  seat  of  the 
wealth  and  intellect  of  the  East,  115  ; 
influence  of  Greek  surroundings  on 
the  Jews  of,  132;  the  exegetical 
school  of,  and  its  object,  182  ;  its 
leading  teachers — Clement  of,  183- 
187  ;  and  Origen,  183-203 
Alexandrian  exegesis,  nature  and  origin 
of,  11  ;  period  during  which  it  lasted, 
12  ;  hermeneutic  principles  of,  22  ; 
influence  of  Philo  in,  22  ;  its  influ¬ 
ence  on  the  Biblical  studies  of  the 
Christian  Church,  111  ;  the  writings 
of  Philo  its  chief  monument,  111  ; 
the  rise,  progress,  and  influence  of, 
111  ct  seq.  ;  the  Septuagint  and  its 
influences,  116-128 ;  its  leading 
founders  and  expounders,  128-158  ; 


496 


Index. 


Aristeas,  128  ;  Aristobulus,  128-136  ; 
Philo,  136-158  ;  three  schools  of,  137; 
nature  and  influence  of  Philo’s  sys¬ 
tem,  136-158  ;  summary  and  result 
of  the  system  of,  153  et  seq.  See 
also  under  Aristeas,  Aristobulus, 
and  Philo. 

Alexandrian  Judaism,  its  contributions 
to  the  history  of  exegesis,  125  et  seq. ; 
nature  of  an  Alexandrian  of  the 
school  of  Philo,  133  ;  voice  of  an 
Alexandrian,  158  ;  theory  of  inspira¬ 
tion,  217 

Alexandrianism,  expounders  of  the 
philosophy  and  exegesis  of,  111-158  ; 
the  legacy  of,  156  ;  a  Divine  progress 
observable  in,  157 

Allegory,  use  made  of,  in  Alexandrian 
and  Patristic  exegesis,  22-26  ;  appli¬ 
cation  of  the  principles  of,  to  the 
Book  of  Ecclesiastes,  31,  32  ;  the 
most  essential  contribution  of  Alex¬ 
andrian  Judaism  to  the  history  of 
exegesis  is  the  method  of,  126  et  seq.  ; 
influence  of  the  writings  of  Aristeas 
and  Aristobulus  on  the  method  of, 
128  et  seq.  ;  how  the  method  of, 
arose,  131  ;  the  Alexandrian  Jews 
find  this  method  ready  to  their  hands, 
134  ;  the  Jews  imperatively  driven 
to,  136  ;  Philo’s  works,  the  epitome 
and  development  of  the  principles  of, 
137 ;  Philo’s  mode  of  dealing  with, 
142-146  ;  nature  of  Philo’s  system  of, 
155  ;  Arnobius  on  the,  of  the  Gentile 
philosophers,  167  n.  ;  allegory  the 
child  of  Rationalism,  193  ;  general  re¬ 
marks  on,  193  n.  ;  Baur  points  out  the 
origin  of  the  system  of  interpretation 
by,  194  n.  ;  Origen’s  system  of,  194 
etseq.  ;  limitation  of  typology  and, 
by  some  English  divines,  195  n.  ; 
Basil  the  Great’s  opposition  to,  220 
n.  ;  Rationalism  the  origin  of,  230  n. ; 
Jerome’s  views  on,  231-234  ;  St. 
Augustine’s  use  of,  237  ;  injury  done 
to  the  sense  of  Scripture  by  the 
method  of,  237,  238  ;  prevalence  of, 
among  the  Fathers  generally,  239- 
242  ;  the  daughter  of  Rationalism, 
249  n.  ;  the  Venerable  Bede  adopts 
a  system  of,  248,  249  ;  views  of  the 
Schoolmen  generally  on,  249-303 ; 
of  Tyndale  on,  300  ;  of  Erasmus  on, 
321  ;  Luther  rejects  the  validity  of, 
328  ;  Calvin’s  view  of,  345  ;  English 
theologians  opposed  to,  353  n.  ; 
Patristic  reasons  for  adopting,  459 
“  Amalthaea’s  horn,”  125 


Am-ha-arets,  meaning  of  the  term, 
59  n. 

Amharatsim,  or  boors,  59  n. 

Amoraim,  or  commentators,  origin  of 
the,  80  ;  the  labours  of,  produce  the 
Jerusalem  Talmud,  81  ;  Rabbina 
Abina,  the  last  of  the,  82 
Amos,  339  n. 

Amos  v.  2,  Rabbinical  explanation  of, 
76  and  n. 

dvaycayy],  Eucherius’s  use  of  the  word, 
24  n. 

Analogict  jidei ,  meaning  of,  as  used  by 
the  Reformers,  332 

“Analogy  of  faith,”  misapplied  use  of 
the  expression,  13 

“  Analogy  of  Scripture,”  subordination 
of  Scriptural  study  to  a  nominally 
so-called,  26 
Anaxagoras,  285  n. 

Angels,  views  of  Schoolmen  regarding, 
292  and  n. 

Anselm  of  Laon,  and  his  interlinear 
glosses,  251 

Antioch,  the  School  of,  system  of  exe¬ 
gesis  of,  210-212  ;  Cardinal  Newman 
on,  211  ;  nature  of,  212  n.  ;  founder 
and  leading  teachers  of,  212  n.  etseq. 
Antiochus  Epiphanes,  his  destruction 
of  the  books  of  the  Law,  16 
Antoninus,  436,  446 
Antonius  L.  Verus,  81 
Apocalypse,  Luther’s  opinion  of  the, 
336 

Apologia,  Stephens’s,  321 
Apollo,  what  the  worshippers  of,  did 
when  Tyre  was  besieged,  8 
Apollos,  Luther  the  first  to  make  the 
now  commonly  accepted  conjecture 
that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was 
written  by,  336  n. 

Aqiba,  Rabbi,  his  strict  adherence  to 
the  Oral  Law,  62  n.  ;  account  of  his 
life  and  doctrines,  71-79;  nature  of 
his  extravagant  and  fantastic  exegesis, 
71  ;  remonstrances  of  certain  Rabbis 
regarding  it,  71  ;  account  of  his 
courtship  of  his  wife  Rachel,  72;  said 
to  be  the  only  Rabbi  who  entered 
Paradise  alive,  73  n.  ;  examples  of 
his  system  of  exegesis,  73-79  ;  the 
five  precepts  which  he  gave  to  Rabbi 
Simon  Ben  Jochai,  77  n.  ;  his  death, 
78  ;  authorities  on  Aqiba  and  his 
work,  78  n.  ;  opposed  to  the  use  of 
any  translation  of  the  Old  Testament, 
119  ;  reference  to,  294 
Aquila’s  version  of  the  Hebrew  Scrip¬ 
tures,  118  and  n.,  119  and  n. 


Index. 


497 


Aquinas,  Thomas,  22  ;  his  influence 
on  scholastic  exegesis,  269  ;  authori¬ 
ties  on  his  works  and  teaching,  269  ; 
his  system  of  exegesis,  269-272  ; 
Tholuck  on,  269  n.  ;  Erasmus  on, 
269  n.  ;  Pope  Leo  XIII.  on,  269  n.  : 
Natalis,  Bucer,  and  Ventura  on, 
269  n.  ;  Renan  on,  271  n.  ;  his  re¬ 
mark  on  Augustine,  282  ;  on  the 
phrase,  “Let  there  be  light,”  295; 
character  of,  801 

Aristeas,  account  of  the  letter  of  the 
Pseudo-,  127  and  n. 

Aristobulus,  nature  and  influence  of  his 
writings,  125-131;  examination  of  his 
statements — that  Greek  philosophy 
is  borrowed  from  the  Old  Testament, 
129  ;  that  the  tenets  of  the  Greek 
philosophers  are  to  be  found  in  Moses 
and  the  Prophets,  130  ;  Dean  Stanley 
on,  131 

Aristotle,  influence  of  his  works  on 
the  mediaeval  Church,  263  ;  twenty 
of  the  Fathers  speak  disparagingly  of 
him,  263  ;  Gregory  of  Nazianzus’s 
opinion  of  him,  263  n.  ;  Jerome’s, 
263  n.  ;  Roger  Bacon’s,  263  n.  ;  his 
works  become  known  through  the 
medium  of  Spanish  Jews,  264  ;  and 
his  influence  rapidly  spreads,  265  ; 
in  the  Sorbonne  it  was  decreed  that 
to  contradict  Aristotle  was  to  con¬ 
tradict  the  Church,  265  ;  Luther  on, 
266  n.  ;  references  to,  282,  289  n. 

Arndt,  John,  accusations  brought 
against,  363 

Arnobius  on  the  allegory  of  the  Gentile 
philosophers,  167  n. 

Arnold,  Dr.,  on  rightly  comprehending 
Scripture,  28  n. 

Articles,  the  Thirty-nine,  on  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  Art.  vi. ,  369  n. 

Ashi,  Rabbi,  completes  and  systematises 
the  Gemara,  82 

Assassinations  of  princes  justified  by 
Scripture  example,  39 

Astruc,  429 

Athenagoras,  and  his  work,  171  and  n. 

“  Atonement  of  the  Cock,”  a  custom  of 
the  Polish  Jews,  101 

Augustine,  his  influence  on  various 
modes  of  exegesis,  24  ;  endorses  the 
seven  rules  of  Tichonius,  24,  26  ;  his 
reproach  to  the  Donatists,  30  ;  his 
mistaken  view  of  the  First  Epistle  of 
St.  John,  31  ;  his  application  of  the 
allegoric  method  to  Ecclesiastes,  31, 
32;  on  the  teaching  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  42  ;  his  partiality  for  the 


Septuagint,  125  ;  his  warnings  to 
Jerome,  224  n.  ;  has  been  termed 
“the  oracle  of  thirteen  centuries,” 
234  ;  he  is  greater  as  an  apologist 
and  theologian  than  as  an  interpreter 
of  Scripture,  234  ;  his  natural  and 
acquired  capabilities,  234  ;  effect  of 
his  character  and  works  on  theology, 
the  Church,  and  the  world,  235  ;  he 
believed  in  the  inspiration  of  the 
Seventy,  235  n.  ;  defects  of  his 
system  of  exegesis,  236  ;  his  use  of 
allegory,  237,  238  ;  authorities  on 
his  work  as  a  commentator,  239  n.  ; 
injury  done  to  interpretation  by  the 
allegoric  method,  238,  239  ;  remark 
of  Rupert  of  Deutz  on,  261  n.  ;  and 
of  Thomas  Aquinas,  282  ;  the  wise 
caution  of,  293 
Aulus  Gellius,  343  n. 

Authors  quoted  or  referred  to  : — 
AbAlard,  29,  43  n.,  253-256  and 
ns. ,  259  n.,  261  and  n. ,  266  and 
n.,  269  n.,  281,  289  n. 

Abravanel,  Don  Isaac,  33  n.,  83,  461, 
464 

Abtalion,  83  n. 

Acacius,  227 

Adler,  Dr.  Hermann,  446 
Adrianus,  23  n.,  26  n.,  219  n. 

Aelian,  120  n. 

Aeneas  Sylvius,  309,  313  n. 
Aeschylus,  138 
Agatharcides,  127 
Agobard,  252  n.,  369  and  n. 

Agrippa,  Cornelius,  36  n. 

Ainsworth,  33  n. 

Albert,  22 

Albert,  Archbishop,  324 
Albertus  Magnus,  253  n.,  265,  268  n., 
285-287  and  ns.,  289  n.,  291  n., 
296  n. ,  301,  460 
Albo,  Joseph,  67  n.,  388,  464 
Alcuin,  247  n.,  251,  253  n.,  420 
Alexander,  114  and  n.,  115,  129 
Alexander,  the  Alabarcli,  138  n. 
Alexander  of  Hales,  253  n.,  265, 
291  n.,  293  n.,  301 
Algarrati,  463 
Amalric,  253  n.,  264  n. 

Amama,  379 

Ambrose,  38  n.,  117  n.,  124,  166  n., 
168  n.,  174  n.,  189,  203  and  n., 
205  and  n.,  206  and  n.,  213  n., 
215  n.,  222,  241,  247,  248,  262, 
263,  317  n. 

Ambrose,  Antpert,  247 
Amesius,  379 


K  K 


498 


Index. 


Authors  continued— 

Amiel,  355 
Ampere,  247,  289  n. 

Anaii,  R.,  443,  444 
Anaxagoras,  135,  136 
Andrewes,  Bishop,  243 
Angelomus,  296  n. 

Anselm,  176,  221,  253  and  n.,  255 
and  n.,  261,  280 
Anselm  of  Laon,  12,  250 
Anton  de  Nebrissa,  280  n. 

Antonius,  Bishop,  297 
Aphraates,  219  n. 

Apollinaris,  227,  254  n. 

Apollonius  Molo,  127 
Apuleius,  282  n. 

Aqiba,  Rabbi,  65,  72-75,  80,  118  n. , 
119,  134,  442,  443,  448,  450,  454, 
460 

Aquila,  118,  119,  120,  221,  229 
Aquinas,  Thomas,  22,  164  71.,  23/  n., 
257,  265,  266  n.,  269  n.,  27 6  and 
n.,  282  and  ti.,  285-288  ti.,  291,  293 
n .,  295,  301,  313,  318  and  n.,  358 
Aramah,  Rabbi  Isaac  ben,  31 
Archangelus,  279  n. 

Arekka,  R.  Abba,  82 
Ariosto,  313  n. 

Aristeas,  116  n.,  117  n.,  127,  134 
Aristides,  207 
Aristo  Pellaeus,  38  n. 

Aristobulus,  127-131,  134,  140,  143 
n  169 

Aristotle,  129,  138,  156,  247,  253 
ti.,  261-266  and/is.,  466,  468,  469 
Arms,  170  n. 

Arminius,  328,  379 
Arnauld,  243 
Arndt,  John,  363 
Arnobius,  167  n. 

Arnold,  Dr.,  28,  42 
Arnold,  Matthew,  114  n. 

Aron  R.,  443 
Artapanus,  127 
Artemon,  263 

Athanasius,  176  n.,  202  and  ti.,  241 
Athenagoras,  171,  179  and  n. 

Atling,  Jac.,  379 
Atling,  J.  H.,  379 
Aucher,  130  n.,  137  n.,  138  n.,  140 
Augustine,  22,  24,  26  and  n.,  30  n. , 
31,  32  n.,  38  n.,  42,  43  n.,  117, 
124,  125,  163  7i.,  166  ti.,  168 
and  7i.,  176  ti.,  189,  205  ?i.,  208 
and  ?i.,  212  and  n.,  220-222,  224 
n.,  227  7i.,  230  7i.,  231  n.,  241,  243, 
246-248,  255  7t. ,  259  n.,  260  ti., 
262,  270,  278  n.,  282  and  ti.,  290, 
293-295  ti.,  312,  313,  317  ti.,  318, 


Authors  continued — ■ 

337,  342  ti.,  346  ti.,  352,  459,  460, 

‘  468,  476 

Aurotinus,  Cornelius,  314  ti. 
Aventinus,  289  n. 

Bacon,  Lord,  41  ti.,  251  ti.,  257  ti., 
263  ti. ,  271,  284,  289  and  n.,  291, 
293  and  ti.,  353  tt.,  407, '427,  465, 
470 

Bacon,  Roger,  274 ti.,  286  andTi.,  310, 
340  n. 

B'ahr,  380 

Bahrdt,  F.  A  ,  400,  406 
Baier,  264  ti.,  362,  371 
Baldwin,  361  ti. 

Barbeyrac,  163  n. 

Barclay,  19  ti. 

Barnabas,  169,  170,  172  ti.,  189,  191 
Baronius,  202  ti.  ,  313  ti. 

Bartolocci,  82,  93 

Basil,  38  ti.,  187  tt.,  202  and  ti., 
206  ti.,  220  ti.,  295  ti.,  317  ti., 
346  ti. 

Bassus,  207 

Baur,  139  ti.,  168  ti.,  181  ti.,  194  tt., 
289  ti.,  368  ti.,  384,  412,  414-416, 
418,  467 

Baxter,  243,  377,  380,  383 
Bayle,  343  ti.,  380,  388 
Beard,  308  ti.,  312  ti.,  315  ti.,  322, 
338  to.,  343  7i.,  361  n. 

Bede,  165  ti,,  168,  248  and  ti.,  249 
and  ti. ,  251  ti.,  257  ti.,  274,  289  ti., 
301  and  ti.,  420,  460,  468 
Bellarmine,  296  ti.,  300,  311,  314, 
321,  326,  350,  374,  375 
Bembo,  308  tt. 

Bengel,  388,  392-394 
Benson,  Archbishop,  182  and  ti. 
Bentley,  428 

Berengarius,  253-255  and  ns. 
Bernard,  St.  ,33ti.,  253,  255-25/ and 
ns.,  260  ti.,  261  n. 

Bernard  Sylvester  of  Chartres,  296  ti. 
Beveridge,  377 

Beza,  328,  342  and  ti.,  351  ti.,  372, 
376 

Bibbiena,  308  ti. 

Binder,  287  ti.,  292  ti. 

Bingham,  377 
Black,  Mr.,  84 
Blayney,  Dr.,  470 
Bleek,  375,  411,  416 
Blunt,  Rev.  Prof.,  163  ti. 

Boccaccio,  309 
Bochart,  130  ti.,  389 
Boethius,  264,  468 
Bohme,  Jacob,  379,  384,  385 


Index. 


499 


Authors  continued — 

Bohringer,  178  n.,  182  n.,  198  n., 
202  n.,  205  n.,  222 
Bolingbroke,  17 

Bonaventura,  43  and  77.,  259,  273 
and  n.,  292,  293  n.,  295  n.,  296,  301 
Bonet,  390 
Bonn,  207  n .,  372 
Bossuet,  17  n.,  33  n. 

Bouquet,  247  n. 

Breithaupt,  239  n. 

Brentius,  32,  372 
Brenz,  342  and  n. 

Bretschneider,  60  n. 

Brewster,  359  n. 

Broughton,  Hugh,  388 
Brown,  313  n. 

Browning,  305 

Brueker,  245  n.,  247  n.,  265  n,, 
283  n.,  289  n.,  470 
Bryan,  377 

Bucer,  328,  342  and  n.,  372,  376 
Buckle,  40  n. 

Buddeus,  66  n.,  101,  202  n.,  203  n., 
205  n.,  251  n.,  252  n.,  277  n., 
278  n.,  346  n.,  380,  389,  434,  446, 
461,  .466 

Bugenhagen,  342  and  n. ,  372 
Bull,  Bishop,  176  n.,  377 
Bullinger,  342  and  n.,  372 
Bunsen,  417 
Bunyan,  John,  324,  377 
Burk,  392 
Burmann,  379,  386 
Burnet,  377 
Burton,  194  n. 

Butler,  377 
Butler,  Archer,  407  n. 

Buxtorf,  60  n.,  74,  83,  86,  88,  92, 
93,  96,  98  n.,  99,  101,  104,  371, 
374,  388,  389,  446 

Calixt,  328,  383,  361  n.,  363,  365, 
379,  383,  467 

Calovius,  22,  358  and  n.,  362,  364- 
366,  368  and  n.,  371,  373,  374, 
383,  397,  426 

Calvin,  163  n.,  1S2,  216,  218  7?., 
291,  322,  328,  331,  336,  342-353 
and  ns.,  360  361,  372,  376, 

382,  472 

Camerarius,  310  n.,  328,  342  and  ??., 
364  n . 

Campanus,  331 
Canne,  470 
Cappell,  379 
Cappellus,  J.,  328  n. 

Cappellus  Ludovicus,  328  n.,  386,  387 
Caranza,  320 


Authors  continued — 

Carlstadt,  324,-331,  336,  341 
Carpenter,  Prof.,  52  n. 

Carpzoy,  363,  371,  382,  388 
Cams,  404 
Casaubon,  374 
Caspe,  Joseph  Ibn,  33  n. 

Cassiodorus,  24  n.,  26  and  n .,  240 

Castell,  33  n.,  86,  377,  389 

Cave,  210  n.,  254  n.,  377 

Cellarius,  119  71 

Celsius,  389 

Celsus,  17,  174 

Cerinthus,  177  and  n. 

Cliaeremon,  127,  198  n. 

Chalcidius,  282  n. 

Chalybaus,  161  n.,  412 
Chananiah  ben  Chizkiyab,  49  n. 
Chemnitz,  328,  342,  358,  368,  467 
Cheyne,  Mr.  103 

Chiarini,  19  n.,  35  n.,  59  n.,  63  n., 
64  n.,  73,  82,  84,  85,  89,  90,  92, 
94,  101 

Chillingworth,  162  77.,  163,  377 
Chrysippuf,  135,  140,  187  n.,  19577., 
202,  211-215,  220-222,  230  n., 
236  77.,  242,  270  n. 

Chrysostom,  317  n.,  329,  333,  471, 
475 

Chytraeus,  342  n.,  372 
Cicero,  64  n.,  135,  136,  144,  468 
Clark,  Samuel,  374 
Clarke,  Dr.,  398,  470 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  24  77.,  109, 
11677.,  117,  128  77.,  129  77.,  143  77., 
165  7?,.,  166  77.,  168  and  n.,  172  77., 
182-187  and  775.,  189,  208,  263  77. 
Clement  of  Rome,  13,  122 


Clericus,  224  n., 

234  77. 

,  328, 

374, 

379, 

383 

Cobet, 

121  77. 

Cocceius,  33  77.,  58  77., 

278  77., 

379, 

385, 

386,  460 

Cochlaeus,  317  n., 

361 

Coleridge,  163  77., 

231  77. 

Colet, 

Dean,  254  77.,  255 

and  77., 

282 

286 

77.,  296  77., 

300 

77.,  318  77., 

321, 

334,  353  7?. 

,  404 

Collier,  Jeremy,  1 7  77. 

Comenius,  Amos,  390 
Comte,  308 
Cornutus,  198  77. 

Conybeare,  299  n. 

Copernicus,  426,  427 
Cotelerius,  170  77. 

Cousin,  249  n.,  253,  260  ?/.,  264  n., 
266  77.,  467,  468 
Coverdale,  316 
Cramer,  250  7i. 


K  K  2 


500 


Index. 


Authors  continued — 

Cremer,  38  6  n. 

Crenius,  19  n. 

Creuzer,  135  %.,  255  %. 

Crutwell,  470 
Cudworth,  279  n.,  377 
Cusa,  Cardinal  de,  313  n. 

Cusanus,  297  n. 

Cuvier,  426 

Cyprian,  123,  180-182  and  ns. ,  216, 
241,  317%.,  326 
Cyril,  201,  263 

Dahne,  104%.,  116  n.,  121  %.,  125%., 
129%,  130%.,  142%.,  149,  452, 
456 

Daille,  163  %.,  187  %.,  229  %.,  428 
Damasus,  224  %. 

Damian,  Peter,  228  n.,  284 
Danaeus,  467 
Dannhauer,  362,  376 
Dante,  23%.,  47,  221,  262,  267,  292, 
298,  312,  313  n. 

Darwin,  427 

David  of  Dinant,  264  * 

Davies,  Rev.  J.  LI.,  206  %. 

De  Broglie,  209  %. 

De  Dieu,  379 
Delacluze,  283  %. 

De  Lamennais,  3,  308 
De  la  Rue,  199%.,  200  %.,  202  %., 
207  %. 

Delitzsch,  32  and  %.,  67  %.,  128  %., 
210,  218  %  ,  224,  294 
Democritus,  135 
Denck,  307 
Denecke,  363 

Denis,  M.  J.,  115  %.,  133%.,  197%. 
Derenbourg,  18%.,  19%.,  55%.,  64 %., 
66  %.,  68  %.,  69,  78,  133  %. 
Descartes,  379,  383,  402,  427,  428 
De  Thou,  39  %. 

Deutsch,  Dr.,  80,  89,  91,  93,  94,  126, 
442 

Deutschmann,  363 
Deutz,  Rupert  of,  312%. 

De  Wette,  32,  142  %.,  312%.,  319, 
325,  411,  419 
Deyling,  65  %.,  389 
D’Herbelot,  53  %. 

Diderot,  266  %. 

Didier,  246 

Didymus,  195%.,  202,  227,  259  n. 
Diestel,  176%.,  203%.,  219%.,  221%., 
227  %.,  253  %.,  254  %.,  277  %., 
295  %.,  337  %.,  339  %.,  342  %., 
343%.,  383,  389,  405 
Dieu,  L.  de,  328 
Dilherr,  388 


Authors  cont  inued — 

Dillman,  451 

Diodore  of  Tarsus,  220,  227,  240  %. 
Diodorus,  23%.,  114%.,  213 
Diog.  Laert.,  135%. 

Diogenes  of  Babylon,  135 
Dionysius,  254 

Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  206,  209  %. 
Dionysius  the  Areopagite,  313 
Disraeli,  Isaac,  69 
Doddridge,  383 

Dollinger,  139  %.,  313  %. ,  323,  365 
Donaldson,  227  %. 

Donne,  294  %. 

Dopkes,  76 
Doring,  278  and  %. 

Dorner,  203%.,  309,  311,  323,  338- 
342  ns.,  349  %.,  358  %.,  360  %., 
362  %.,  366  %.,  368  %.,  374,  379, 
382,  386,  391,  405,  407,  408,  411, 
416 

Dorotheus,  209 
Dorpius,  320  %. 

Dositheus,  115  %.,  361  %.,  393 
Doucin,  202 
Drummond,  321 
Drusius,  328,  379 

Duns  Scotus,  280,  281,  289  %.,  290 
and  %.,  292  %.,  301 
Du  Pin,  233  %. 

Durandus,  261  %.,  286  %.,  293  %., 
295  %. 

Durham,  33  %. 

Durham,  Bishop  of,  188 

E beard,  383  %. 

Edersheim,  64  %.,  86 
Edwards,  Principal,  392 
Eisenmenger,  65  %.,  93,  105 
Eldad,  166  %. 

Eleazar,  Rabbi,  19  %. 

Eliezer,  R.,  70,  86,  87,  119  %.,  445 
Ellicott,  Bishop,  476 
Elster,  251  %. ,  283  %. 

Empedokles,  135,  138,  285  %. 

Emser,  329,  331 
Engelstoft,  224  %.,  234  %. 

Ense,  V.  von,  390 

Epiphanius,  117,  119,  125%.,  177%., 
181  %.,  202  %.,  208  %. 

Episcopius,  Simon,  163%.,  328,  379 
Erasmus,  203  %.,  223  %.,  229  %., 
251  %.,  260  %.,  265  and  %.,  269  %., 
280  and  %.,  284,  289  %.,  290  and 
%.,  293  and  %.,  299,  310%.,  313%., 
314  and  %.,  315  %.,  321,  322,  325, 
328,  343%.,  355,  358,  428,  475 
Erlangen,  325 


Index. 


501 


Authors  continued  — 

Ernesti,  219  n. 

Erpenius,  379 

Ersch,  30  n.,  115  n.,  385  n.  ^ 
Etheridge,  47,  53  n.,  61  n.,  /  0,  78, 
84,  90,  92,  93,  95,  97,  100 
Eucherius  Lugduensis,  24,  26  n.,  240, 
295  n. 

Eupolemos,  127 
Euripides,  7  to.,  138 
Eusebius,  16  n.,  116  n.,  119  n.,  1-4, 
128,  129  n.,  130  n.,  137  n.,  142  n., 
143  to.,  171  n. ,  174  to.,  176  n., 
177  to.,  181  to.,  182  to.,  185  to., 
198  to.,  201  to.,  202  and  to.,  203  to., 
206  to.,  207  to.,  209  and  to.,  229  to., 
232 

Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  22/ 

Eusebius  of  Emesa,  219  n.^  227 
Eustathius  of  Antioch,  227 
Eustochium,  257 

Evans,  Miss  (‘ 4  George  Eliot  ),  43. 3 
Ewald,  33  to.,  38  to.,  51  to.,  53  to., 
57  to.,  67  to.,  103,  115  to.,  130 1  to., 
137  to.,  143  to.,  149,  151,  154,  2-4, 
230,  415,  416,  462 
Ewing,  Bishop,  236  to. 

Ezra,  Ibn,  33  to.,  70,  83,  89,  92,  95, 
274,  384,  445,  462-464 


Facundtts  Hermianensis,  213  to., 

346  to.  rttr . 

Eabricius,  128,  210 to.,  251  to. ,  25  to., 
277  to.,  280,  313  to.,  326,  328,  334 
Farrar,  Dr.  A.  S.,  402,  412 
Fecht,  363  and  to. 

Feuardent.ius,  174  to.,  346  to. 
Feuerbach,  412,  414,  416 
Fichte,  353  to.,  384,  401,  409 
Filelfo,  308  to. 

Finnilian,  202  . 

Flacius  Illyricus,  Matthias,  2//  to., 
328,  333,  342  and  to.,  352,  364 
Flier,  385 
Flottes,  235  n. 

Fludd,  36  to. 

Forcellini,  115  n. 

Forster,  220  to.,  221 
Fortunatianus,  227 
Fortunatus,  246 
Fowler,  377 

Franck,  125  to.,  130  to.,  131 
Francke,  97,  376,  382,  401,  41- 
Frank,  362  to.,  363  to.,  463 
Frank  el,  78,  92,  116  to.,  119  to.,  120 
to.,  125  to.,  142  to. 

Franker,  454 
French,  125  to. 

Freppel,  Abbe,  187  to. 


Authors  continued  — 

Friederich,  33  to. 

Friedl'ander,  22  to.,  68  ns.,  / 0,  /8, 
80,  81,  463 
Frigerio,  270  to. 

Fritzsche,  216  to.,  219  to.,  223  to., 
250  to.,  360  to. 

Fuller,  388 
Funk,  165  to.,  171  to. 

Ftirst,  66  to.,  82 


G abler,  402 
Gallandi,  128  to  ,  219  to. 

Galle,  341  to. 

Gaon,  Fv.  Serira,  92,  461 
Gass,  383,  386,  411 
Gebirol,  Ibn,  464 

Geiger,  22  to.,  35  to.,  66  to.,  9_,  1- 
to.,  315 

Geldarat,  Dr.,  412 
Gellert,  401 
Gennadius,  26  to. 

Gerando,  Dr.,  466 

Gerhard,  350  358,  362,  366  and 

n„  371,  373,  376,  387 
Gerlach,  154 

Gerson,  John,  253  to.,  278  to.,  2/9, 

301,  330  ,  01K 

Gerson,  Levi  Ben,  309  and  to.,  315 

Gesenius,  115  to.,  224 

Gfrorer,  38  to.,  128,  140,  148,  14., 

452 

Gieseler,  184  to.,  196  to  ,  201  to.,  209 
n.,  254  to.,  308  to.,  309  to.,  312  to., 

Qol  ill 

Gilly/229  TO.,  232  to. 

Ginsburo-,  19  to.,  31  tos.,  33  to.,  36  to., 

73,  7L  81,  84,95-98,104-106,446, 

451  462,  464 

Gitten,  64  to.,  68  to.,  69,  79,  80,  86, 
442 

Glaire,  Abbe,  360  to. 

Glassius,  104,  376 
Glaukon,  135 

Gobar,  Steph.,  201  to.,  206  to. 

Gobel,  372 

Goethe,  87,  365  to.,  391,  401 
Gomarus,  379 
Goodwin,  389 
Gotteschalc,  253 
Gow,  247  to. 

Guericke,  182  to.,  201  to.,  206  to. 
Gurtler,  379,  386. 

Guttmann,  364  to. 

Gratiger,  130  to. 

Gratz,  19  to.,  53  to.,  56  to.,66to.,68 
to.,  70,  72-74,  78-83,  89,  91-93  Sb, 
114-116  tos.,  118,  128  to.,  -/(, 
462,  464 


502 


Index. 


Authors  continued — 

Greg,  Rathbone,  246  n. 

Gregory,  23  n.,  168,  201,  202  and 
n.,  213  n.,  240  and  n. ,  246  and 
n.,  247  n.,  250,  268,  270,  274,  277 
n.,  295  n.,  298  n. 

Gregory  of  Nyssa,  195  n.,  202,  222, 
259,  373 

Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  32  n.,  195  n., 
226,  243,  263  n.,  291  n.,  293  n. 
Gregory  of  Tours,  246  and  n. 

Grocyn,  313  n. 

Grostete,  260  n. 

Grotius,  33  n.,  40  n.,  163  n.,  243, 
263  n.,  328,  351,  365  and  n.,  374, 
376,  379,  380,  383,  387,  445 
Gruber,  30  n.,  115  n.,  385  n. 
Gryuaeus,  234  n. 

Haag,  343  n.,  351  n. 

Haddarshan,  Simeon,  83 
Hagenbach,  360  n.,  372,  391,  405- 
407,  409,  411 
Hales,  377 

Hallam,  39  n.,  40  n.,  247,  258  n., 
280,  314  n.,  316  n.,  470 
Halle,  208  n. 

Haller,  402 

Hallevy,  Rabbi  Jehudi,  92 
Hamburger,  18  n.,  50  n.,  60  n.,  64 
n.,  66  n.,  101,  104 
Hammond,  377,  380 
Hampden,  240  n.,  266  n.,  281  n. , 
283  n.,  311  n. 

Harding,  260  n. 

Harduin,  212  n. 

Hare,  165  n. 

Harms,  Claus,  413 
Hartmann,  393 
Hase,  341  n. 

Hasselbach,  289 

Haureau,  245  n.,  247  n.,  253  n., 
257  n.,  261  n.,  265  n.,  280,  281 
n.,  282  n. 

Hausrath,  88,  100,  103,  114  n.,  116 
Havernick,  119  n. 

Haymann,  462  n. 

Haymo,  250 
Hazlitt,  334 

Hegel,  384,  412,  413,  428 
Heidegger,  F.,  374,  387,  389 
Heine,  32 
Heinz,  206  n. 

Heliodorus,  203  n. 

Heloise,  260  n. 

Helvidius,  228  n. 

Hengstenberg,  120  n.,  277,  402,  417 
Henke,  383 
Hennischius,  33  n. 


Authors  continued — 

Heppe,  339  n. 

Herakleides  of  Pontius,  136  and  n., 
138  243 

Heraklitns,  129  n.,  138 
Herder,  33  n.,  91,  320,  377,  380, 
399,  403,  405,  406,  409,  410 
Hergenrother,  Cardinal,  212,  25 On., 
258  n.,  265  n.,  280  n.,  283  n. 
Hernias,  1 7 1  and  n. 

Herodotus,  120  n. 

Hershon,  21  n.,  36  n.,  50  n.,  59  n. , 
65  n.,  66  n.,  72,  74-77,  102,  442 
Hesiod,  127,  135,  138 
Heumann,  284  n. 

Hervaeus  Dolensis,  286  n.,  297  n. 
Herzfeld,  51  n.,  52  n.,  115  n.,  116 
n.,  119  n.,  125  n.,  128  n. 

Herzog,  53  n.  114  n.,  251  n.,  281  n., 

365  n.,  380,  383 
Hierax,  202 

Hieronymus,  24  n. ,  234  n.,  251  n. 
Hilary,  22,  38  n.,  168  n.,  169,  174 
n.,  188  n.,  189,  203  and  n.,  204, 
205  n.,  213  n.,  227,  229  n.,  262, 
270,  286  and  n.,  317,  334,  347, 
461,  468 

Hilgenfeld,  148,  166  n.,  168  n.,  416, 
452 

Hillel,  18  and  n.,  19  n.,  21,  22  and 
n.,  24,  50-53  and  ns.,  64-69  and 
ns.,  77,  80,  134,  224,  443 
Hingenfeld,  106 

Hippolytus,  169,  170  n.,  201  n.,  227, 
232 

Hirschfeld,  104,  149 
Hirzel,  33  n. 

Hitzig,  33  n.,  117  n. 

Hody,  116  n.,  117  n.,  120  n.,  128, 
223,  374,  387 
Hoeschel,  D.,  23  n. 

Hollaz,  or  Hollatius,  27  n.,  351  n., 

366  and  n.,  371,  373 

Homer,  130  n.,  135,  136,  138,  406 
Hoogstraten,  315 

Hooker,  243,  344 n.,  353  77.,  372,  376, 
470 

Hoornbeck,  379 
Hopkins,  Bishop,  436 
Host,  209  n.,  213  n. 

Hottinger,  389 
Howe,  377 

Huet,  188ti.,  189ti.,  200  n.,  208  n., 
209  'ii. 

Hug,  33  n. 

Hugo,  252,  255  257  and  n.,  259  n., 

265,  268  7i.,  273  n.,  286  n.,  295  n. 
Hugo  of  St.  Cher,  260  n.,  274  n., 
27 On.,  295,  318 


Index. 


503 


Authors  continued — 

Hugo  of  St.  Victor,  26  n.,  32,  277  n., 
280  n. 

Humboldt,  W.  von,  411 
Hunnius,  346  and  n. 

Hurwitz,  79,  92,  94 
Hus,  John,  279,  312 
Hutten,  Ulric  von,  313 
Hiitter,  362 
Hyde,  377 

Ignatius,  167  n.,  171,  172  n., 

286  n. 

Irenaeus,  99,100,  109,  117  n.,  119  n., 
122,  124,  166,  170  and  n.,  173  n., 
174  and  n.,  176  and  n.,  177,  179 
n.,  180  n.,  183  and  n.,  196  n.,  212 
n.,  216,  227,  280  n.,  317  m,  326 
Isaac,  Rabbi,  120  n. 

Jshmael,  Rabbi,  19  n.,  22,  72,  73 
Isidore  Pelusiota,  137  n. 

Isidore,  168,  468 

Jacobi,  33  n. 

Jaraczewsky,  270  n. 

Jason  of  Gyrene,  126 
Jeremie,  187  n. 

Jerome,  St.,  14 n.,  15,  23,  30  n.,  31, 
78,  87,  89,  117-119,  122  n.- 124, 
142  n.,  145,  169-171  and  ns.,  174 
n.,  175  n.,  176  n.,  180  n.,  182 
n.,  183  n.,  187  n.,  188  n.,  189, 
194  n.,  195  n.,  198  n.,  202  n.,  203 
and  n.,  205  and  n.,  206  n.,  212 
and  n.,  213  n.,  220,  222-224,  227- 
230  and  ns.,  233-235,  240  n.,  241, 
246,  248,  257,  260  n.,  263  n.,  270, 
274,  277  n.,  290,  294,  295  n.,  314, 
317,  337,  342  n.,  345,  346  n.,  459, 
460,  468,  475 

Jesus,  son  of  Siracb,  117-119 
Jewell,  Bishop,  327,  376 
Jochai,  97  and  n. 

Jochanan,  Rabbi,  21  n. 

Johanan,  R.,  69,  70 
John  of  Damascus,  248,  259  n.,  262 
and  n. 

John  of  Salisbury,  43  n.,  257  n.,  259 
n.,  264  n.,  266  n.,  273  n.,  290, 
292  n.,  294  and  n.,  296  n.,  310 
Jose,  R.,  70,  71 

Josephus,  78,  115  n.,  116  n.,  117, 
121  n.,  126  n.,  148,  154,  452,  453, 

461 

Joshua,  R.,  70,  73,  86,  90,  445,  455 
Jost,  19  7i.,  52  n.,  54  n.,  55  n.,  57  n., 
58  n.,  61 7%.,  64-68  ns.,  70,  72,  74, 
77,  78,  92,  115  n.,  128  n.,  143  n., 

462 


Authors  continued — 

Jourdain,  264  n. 

Jovinian,  227,  228  an dn.,  233 
Jowett,  154 
Juda,  Rabbi,  60  m,  65 
Julius  Africanus,  207,  208  and  n., 
220 

Julian  of  Eclane,  240  n. 

Junius,  379 
Jurgens,  324 

Justin  Martyr,  117,  123,  129,  166, 
171  72.-174,  189,  191,  201  n.,  230 
n.,  239,  263,  346  m 
Justinian,  119,  125  m,  254  m,  316  n. 
Juvenal,  17 

Kahana,  R.,  86 

Kahnis,  391,  393,  403,  405,  407- 
417 

Ivalisch,  445 
Kant,  399,  428 
Karnitol,  97  m 
Kay,  Dr.,  103 

Kaye,  Bishop,  172  m,  178  m,  183- 
187  and  ns. 

Keach,  353  m 
Keble,  344  m 

Keim,  67  m,  113  m,  142  m,  154,  334, 
415 

Ivempis,  Thomas  a,  474 
Kennicott,  388 
Kepler,  41  m 
Ivilon,  239  m 
Kimedonc,  475 
Kimmel,  361  m,  393  77- 
King,  Dr.,  90 
Kircher,  388 

Kitto,  19  m,  73,  95,  102,  104 
Ivlausen,  26  m,  117  m,  225  m,  239  m, 
243,  277  m,  342  n.,  343  m,  360  m, 
371,  386,  391 
Kleanthes,  138 

Klein,  Grand-Rabbi,  88,  89,  91, 
98  m 

Kling,  467 

Koch,  John,  385,  see  also  Cocceius 
Kostlin,  326,  329,  331,  335-337  m, 
340  m 

Krause,  337  m 
Krochmal,  57  m,  92,  463  72. 

Kuenen,  115m,  12872..,  208  72. 

Kurz,  360  m,  362  m,  363  72.,  375, 
382,  404,  417,  420 

Lachmann,  320  m 
Lactantius,  30  ?i.,  41  n.,  123,  169, 
170  72. 

Ladd,  Professor,  294  m,  383 
Lainpe,  177  72.,  376,  379,  386 


504 


Index. 


Authors  continued — 

Landerer,  264%.,  281  n.,  360  n. 

Lane,  468 

Lanfranc,  253,  254  n.,  260  n.,  264  n. 
Lange,  33  n.,  2 66%.,  299  n.,  325, 
363  n.,  371,  398 
Langenstein,  289 
Lardner,  185  n. 

Las  Casas,  308 
Launoy,  266  n. 

Lavater,  401 
Law,  William,  384 
Le  Clerc,  Viet.,  316 n.,  37 6,  379, 
380 

Lecky,  39  %.,  4:0  n. 

Lee,  afterwards  Archbishop  of  York, 
320  n. 

Leibnitz,  398,  399,  410,  428 
Leighton,  377 
Leiri,  R.,  90 

Leller,  138  n.,  142  n.,  143%. 

Le  Long,  277  n. 

Le  Maistre,  308 
Leon,  97 
Leontius,  219%. 

Lequien,  466 

Lessing,  17,  307,  400,  401,  409 
Leusden,  388 

Levita,  Elias,  51  %.,  106,  388,  450, 
451,  464 

Lewes,  G.  H.,  253%.,  470 
Ley  decker,  379 
Libanius,  17 
Liebner,  265%. 

Lightfoot,  Bishop,  93,  166,  188, 
213%.,  219%.,  220%.,  328,  377 
Limborch,  346  %.,  379 
Linus,  127 
Lipsius,  176  %. 

Littre,  413 
Livy,  321 
Lobeck,  135  %. 

Locke,  290%.,  353%.,  377 
Lbckler,  223  %.,  224  %.,  226  %., 

227  %.,  228  %.,  230  %.,  232  %., 

234  %. 

Lombard,  Peter,  32  %.,  253  %.,  255  %. , 
259,  262,  318 
Longland,  295  and  %. 

Loscher,  363,  388 

Low,  22%.,  73,  79,  92,  114%.,  150, 
294,  445,  451,  461 
Lowtli,  33%.,  377,  383 
Liicke,  207  %.,  240  %.,  407,  411, 
473 

Lully,  Raymond,  36%.,  280 
Lupton,  248%.,  296  %.,  300%.,  321, 
334,  353%.,  466 
Lupus,  246  %. 


Authors  continued — 

Luther,  30-33  and  ns.,  104,  118,  134, 
163,  179  and  %.,  184  %.,  222  %., 
236  %.,  243,  260,  265,  266  %.,  275 
%.,  277  and  %.,  279  and  %.,  280, 
284,  286,  291  %.,  293,  297-299, 
305,  307,  308,  311,  312,  314-317, 
319-328,  330,  333,  337,  338,  340- 
343  and  ns.,  345,  346  and  %.,  348 
ands%. ,  349,  351,  352,  355,  358, 
360,' 361,  364,  368,  376,  393,  403, 
426,  462,  470,  475 
Luzzato,  64%.,  92 
Lydius,  379 
Lysimachus,  127 

Maccovius,  379 
Machiavelli,  309 
Macknight,  195%. 

Mai,  145,  202%.,  208  n. 

Maimonides,  82,  84,  89-91,  95,  104, 
275,  315,  384,  462,  463 
Maitland,  Dr. ,  196%.,  232%.,  247%., 
324,  364%. 

Maitre,  247  %. 

Magius,  251  %. 

Major,  G.,  339%. 

Majus,  J.  H.,  385 
Manetho,  127 

Mangey,  129%.,  134, 135%.,  137%., 141 
Manning,  294  %. 

Manset,  247  %. 

Marchesinus,  Joannes,  280%. 
Marcellinus,  202  %. 

Marcion,  17,  29,  175,  177,  181  %., 
235  %.,  308,  351 
Maresius,  379 
Mariana,  39  %.,  40  %. 

Marsh,  Bishop,  195  %.,  300  n. 
Marsilio  of  Padua,  236  %.,  282  %., 
293  %. 

Martene,  261  %. 

Martianus,  Capella,  247  %. 

Martin,  Raymond,  93 
Martinus  Bellius,  351 
Massuet,  175 
Mathesius,  265  %. ,  324%. 

Matter,  115  %.,  182  n. 

Maurice,  F.  D.,  179  %.,  180  %.,  260 
%.,  262  %.,  429 
Mazzini,  308  and  %. 

McCaul,  Dr.,  59  %.,  464 
Medad,  166%. 

Meier,  33  %.,  80,  254  %.,  448 
Melanchthon,  32,  163  %.,  243,  265%., 
321,  322,  327-329,  331,  336,  341 
and  %.,  342  %.,  345,  350,  351  and 
%.,  361  and  %.,  364,  368,  383,  466, 
467,  470 


Index. 


505 


Authors  continued — 

Melito,  32  n.,  171  n. 

Mendelssohn,  384,  399-401 
Mentzer,  368 
Mercer,  342  n.,  372 
Merx,  19  n.,  21  n.,  213  n.,  218  n., 
219  n.,  268  n.,  269  n.,  270  n., 
274  n.,  275  n.,  277  n.,  291  ?r., 
343  n.,  349  w.,  352  n. 

Methodius,  201,  201  n. 

Metrodorus,  135 
Meturgemans,  116 
Meuschen,  93 

Meyer,  275  n.,  277  n.,  280  n.,  305, 
313  n.,  343  n.,  374,  376,  380,  386, 
403,  405,  418 
Michelet,  40  n. 

Middleton,  163,  173 
Migne,  24  n.,  26  n.,  201  n.,  202  n., 
216  n.,  246  n.,  247  n.,  260  n., 
271  n.,  272  n. 

Mildert,  van,  Bishop,  195  n.,  300  n. 
Mill,  208  n. 

Milligan,  Prof.,  167  n.,  169 
Milman,  78,  83,  92,  248  n.,  254  n., 
298  n.,  301  n.,  316  n.,  319  n., 

462 

Milton,  163,  164  n.,  251  n.,  359  n., 
367 

Minucius  Felix,  121  n. 

Holler,  233  n. 

Monnier,  247  n 
Montacute,  346 
Montet,  254  n. 

More,  Henry,  36  n. 

More,  Sir  T.,  320  n. 

Morgan,  377 

Morinus,  J. ,  225  n.,  387,  388 
Mosheim,  183  n.,  188,  193  n.  283  n. 
Motley,  41  n. 

Muir,  47,  119 

Muller,  J.,  128,  142  n.,  365  n.,  411 
Mulliuger,  247  n.,  248  n.,  262-264 
ns.,  365  n. 

Munk,  32  n.,  78,  265  n .,  449,  462, 

463 

Mu nter,  216  n. 

Miintzer,  307,  341 
Muratori,  40  n. 

Musculus,  342  and  n.,  372 
Musaeus,  135 
Myslenta,  364 

Nachmanides,  102 
Nahum,  R.,  74,  75,  80,  442,  447 
Nathan,  Rabbi,  18  n.,  32  n.,  35, 
57  ».,  68  n.,  89 
Nathan,  Rabbi  Isaak,  450 
Neale,  J.  M.,  Dr.,  296  n.,  297  n. 


Authors  continued — 

Neander,  26  n.,  133  n.,  180  n. , 
184  n.,  209  n.,  211-213  ns.,  236 
n.,  411,  414,  415 

Newman,  Cardinal,  14  n.,  170  n., 
176  n.,  180  n.,  181  n.,  191  n., 
209  n.,  211,  212,  221  n.,  251  n., 
253  n.,  254  n.,  270  n.,  286  n., 
327  470 

Nicephorus,  202  n.,  207  n. 

Nicolai,  401,  406,  462 

Nicolas  of  Lyra,  318,  334  andw.,  462 

Niebuhr,  180  n. 

Nitzsch,  411 
Notker,  226  n. 

Norris,  Archdeacon,  176  n. 

Nosselt,  405 
Nourisson,  236  n. 

Noyes,  Dr.,  33  n. 

Numenius,  198  n. 

Opf-rt  rNT  4-01 

Occam,  William  of,  281,  282,  302 

Oecolampadius,  342 

Oehler,  114  n.,  234  n.,  350  n.,  386 

Olshausen,  411 

Olympiodorus,  32 

Onias,  115  n. 

Onqelos,  119,  315 
Oporin,  Joachim,  31 
Optatus,  182 

Origen,  15,  23,  26  n.,  33  n.,  115, 
118  n.,  119  n.,  120  n.,  123,  124 
131,  134,  166  n.,  168  n.,  171  n. 
174  n.,  17 6  n.,  177,  179  n.,  182  n., 
183  and  n .,  185  n.,  187-191,  193- 
203  and  ns.,  207-209  n.,  215-217, 
220  and  n.,  223,  226,  227,  229- 
232,  239-241,  263  n.,  286,  294, 
295  n.,  307,  333,  337,  346  n. 
Orpheus,  135 
Osiander,  328,  364,  368 
Otho,  53  n. 

Otto,  172  n. 

Oudin,  313  n. 

Ovid,  296,  343  n.,  468 
Owen,  John,  374,  377,  432 
Ozanam,  223  n. 

Pamphilus,  202,  209  n. 

Panormita,  308  n. 

Pantaenus,  183,  185 
Papias,  171  n.,  177  n. 

Pareus,  346  n. 

Paris,  Dr.,  470 
Parker,  353  n. 

Parmenian,  182 
Parmenides,  138 
Pascal,  432,  433 


506 


Index. 


Authors  continued — 

Paschasius  Radbertus,  250,  253  n. 
Pattison,  291  n. 

Paulinus,  166  n.,  168,  232  n.,  226 
Paulla,  257 
Paulus,  Dr.,  418 

Paulus  of  Burgos  (Solomon  Levita), 
278  and  n.,  293  n. 

Peacock,  Bishop,  313  n. 

Pearson,  377,  470 
Pelagius,  234  n.,  240  n. 

Pellicanus,  315,  342  n. 

Perez  of  Valentia,  Jacob,  26  n.,  279 
Petavius,  38  n.,  170  n.,  288 
Peter  Lombard,  289  n.,  344  n.,  358 
Peter  Martyr,  345  n. 

Petrarch,  309 
Petronius,  245  n. 

Pfaff,  385  n. 

Pfefferkorn,  315  and  n. 

Pfeiffer,  258  n.,  366  n.,  374,  389 
Pforzheim,  315  n. 

Philippson,  128  n.- 
Philo,  12,  22  and  n.,  23,  37,  38  n., 
54  n.,  79,  100,  109,  111,  114-117, 
120-122,  125-134,  136-156,  158, 
172,  173,  182,  186,  187  n.,  189, 
191  and  n.,  194,  198,  201,  452, 
453,  455-458,  460,  463 
Philo  [the  elder],  126,  143  n. 

Photius,  109,  137,  166  n.,  170  n., 
201  n.,  202  n.,  206  n.,  207 n.,  214 
and  n.,  250  n.,  254  n. 

Picus  of  Mirandola,  279  andw.,  282, 
300  n.,  309 
Pierius,  202 
Pindar,  138 
Pinner,  Dr.  Moses,  92 
Pitra,  269  n. 

Planck,  364  n. 

Plato,  126,  129,  131,  133,  135,  136, 
138,  140,  142,  148,  154,  185- 
187  n.,  189  n.,  193,  196,  198  n., 
217,  263,  269  n.,  406 
Pliny,  114  n.,  166  n. 

Plotinus,  255  and  n. 

Plutarch,  101,  114  n.,  383 
Pococke,  377 
Politian,  308  n. 

Poole,  252  n.,  260  n.,  296  n.,  343  n., 
389,  466 

Pope,  254  n.,  278  n.,  293  n.,  318  n. 
Poly  carp,  171, 172  n.,  174,  177  and  n. 
Polychronius,  219  n. 

Pomponatius,  308  n. 

Porphyry,  17,  198,  198  n.,  282 
Porree,  Gilbert  de  la,  466,  467 
Porson,  178  n. 

Posidonius  of  Apamea,  127 


A  uthors  continued — - 
Potliinus,  174 
Prantl,  264  n.,  267  n. 

Prideaux,  76,  377 
Primasius,  287 
Proclus,  254  n. 

Prudentius,  168  n.,  468 
Pseudo- Aristeas,  115  n.,  116,  128 
Pseudo -Haymo,  268 
Ptolemaeus,  175  n. 

Puffendorf,  33  n. 

Pusey,  Dr.,  163,  168  n.,  460 
Pythagoras,  129,  135,  136 

Qimchi,  David,  83,  315,  464 
Qimchi,  R.  Joseph,  464 
Qimchi,  R.  Moses,  464 
Quensted,  27  n.,  333,  351  n.,  358, 
362,  366  andw.,  370,  373 

Rabanus  Maurits,  204,  250  and  w., 
251  n.,  285,  297 
Rabba,  Rabbi,  50 
Rabelais,  292 

Rambach,  366  n.,  371,  376,  379,  434 
Rambam,  R.,  83,  97 
Rappoport,  92,  132  n.,  150 
Rashi(Rabbi  Solomon  Jizcliaki),  33  n. , 
50,  62  n.,  85,  95,  275  and  w.,  277 
and  n.,  315,  334,  445,^462 
Rathmann  of  Liibeck,  372 
Ratram,  253 

Raymond  of  Sabiende,  340  n. 
Redepenning,  196  n. 

Reeves,  163  n. 

Reimarus,  400 

Reinken,  Bishop,  187,  205  n. 

Reland,  389 

Remigius,  204  and  n.,  252,  268  n., 
270 

Remusat,  259  n.,  266  n.,  466,  470 
Renan,  22  n.,  66  n.,  174  n.,  180  n., 
264  n.,  265  n.,  270  n.,  271  n., 
294  n.,  363  n.,  375,  376,  383,  384, 
404,  419,  470 

Reuchlin,  35,  97,  101,  129  n. 

Reuss,  96,  134,  168  n.,  181  n.,  219  n., 
224  n.,  231  n.,  343  n.,  360  n.,  389, 
403,  405,  433 
Reuter,  252  n. 

Ribof,  231  n. 

Richard  of  St.  Victor,  258  n,,  259  n., 
277  n. 

Richter,  137  n.,  219  n. 

Ridderus,  265  n. 

Riehm,  411 

Riggenbach,  415 

Ritter,  Bernard,  137  n.,  236  n. 

Rivet,  376,  379 


Index. 


507 


Authors  continued — 

Rocca,  Angelo,  278  n. 

Romberg,  339  n.,  340  n.,  358  n. 
Roscelin,  253,  281 
Robertson,  F.  W.,  334 
Rosenmiiller,  186  n.,  201-203  ns., 
205  n.,  212  n.,  219  n.,  234  n., 
239  n.,  267  n.,  275  n.,  277  n., 
296  %.,  346  n.,  320  n. 

Rousseau,  400 

Routli,  38  n.,  175  n.,  1//  n.,  183  n., 
202  n.,  207-209  7%>'.,  223  n. 
Rufinus,  188,  202,  205  n.,  206  n., 
224%.,  227-229  and  ns.,  240  n. 
Rupert  of  Deutz,  255,  261  n.,  268  n. 
312  n. 

Rupp,  202  n. 

Rusbroek,  258  n. 


Saadia,  R.,  53  n.,  315,  461-463 
Sale,  275  n. 

Salmeron,  299  n. 

Salschutz,  86 

Sanday,  215  n.,  219-221  ns. 

Savonarola,  279  and  w.,  309 

Scaliger,  328,  389 

Schaff,  202  n.,  212  n.,  254,  293  %. 

Sckleiermacher,  344  n.,  412,  41o 

Schleusner,  457 

Schliisselberg,  362  n.,  364  n. 

Schmid,  H.,  383,  405 
Schbttgen,  93,  389 
Schiock,  187  n.,  201-203  w.,  205  %., 
206  n.,  219  n.,  224  2/5,  335, 

389 

Schultens,  389,  445 
Schiirer,  52  n. 

Schwab,  19  n.,  91,  92,^463 
Schwarz,  411,  413,  417 
Schwegler,  262  n.,  416 
Schweinitz,  Bishop  E.  de,  390 
Schwenkenfeld,  374 
Scott,  470 
Scotus,  164  n.,  253 
Scrivener  (Dr.),  343  n. 

Seebohm,  318  n.,  322,  353  n. 

Selden,  377,  389 

Sender,  26  n.,  92,  230,  402,  403,  409, 
410,  473 

Seneca,  343  n. ,  468 
Shakespeare,  246 
Shammai,  65-67  and  ns.,  134 
Shemaia,  83 

Shetach,  Simeon  ben,  19  n. 

Shichard,  100  n. 

Shuckford,  377 
Sielfert,  216  %.,  219  n. 

Siegfried,  22  n. ,  37  n.,  120  n.,  132, 
134.  138%.,  112  n.,  148-151,  1/2 


Authors  continued — 

n.,  205  n.,  275  n..  277  n. ,  290, 
291  n.,  334,  452,  456 
Sigebert,  301  n. 

Simon,  R.,  74,  77,  130  n.,  1/1,  ~ 

223,  229%.,  234%.,  252  %.,268  ?^., 
277%.,  334,  343  %.,  361  %.,  375,  444 
Simon  Magnus,  172  %. 

Sixtus  Senensis,  206  %  ,  238  %., 
249  71.,  270%.,  274  7%,  280%.,  289, 
291  %.,  460 
Smend,  48  %. 

Smith,  182%.,  206  n.,  207  %.,  224, 
377 

Smith,  Robertson,  3/0 
Socrates,  129,  188,  202  n.,  ^-08  n., 
213  %.,  401 
Solon,  138 
Sonntag,  403 
Sophocles,  138 
Sozomen,  182  n.,  212  %. 

Spannheim,  389 
Specht,  219  %. 

Spener,  Phillip,  390  ^ 

Spenser,  164  %.,  35o,  36o  and  %., 
376,  377,  401,  412 

Spinoza,  17,  83,  280,  383,  384,  39/, 
403,  418,  428 
Spitta,  F.,  208  %. 

Sprenger,  40  and  %.,  309 

Stanley,  A.  P.,  116  121k.,  131, 123 

Staupitz,  John,  312 

Steinsclmeider,  92 

Steitz,  24 

Stelling,  401 

Stephen,  343  %. 

Stephens,  Robert,  321 
Stesimbrotus,  135 
Stier,  340  n. 

Stieren,  175  n. 

Stockl,  255  %.,  267  n. 

Strabo,  114  %.,  115 
Strauss,  307,  384,  402,  410,  1U 
417 

Strobel,  T.,  341  n. 

S  tunica,  317  _  _ 

Suidas,  137  %.,  142  %.,  20o,  -0/  %. 

213  %. 

Soso,  258  %. 

Swete,  213  n.,  214  n. 

Symmachus,  221  n.  229 
Synesius,  187  %.,  2o4  %. 

Syrus,  Ephraem,  171  %.,  209,  -10 
Szinessy,  Dr.  Schiller,  82 


Tacitus,  17,  121  %.,  166  n. 
Tanchum,  R.,  464 
Tarphon,  R.,  70  _ 

Tatian,  135  %.,  171  and  %. 


508 


Index. 


Authors  continued — 

Tauter,  258  n. ,  355 
Taylor,  Jeremy,  17  n.,  41  n.,  43  n., 
57  w.,  62%.,  242  n.,  292  n.,  329, 
353  n. 

Teller,  405 

Tertullian,  30  n.,  38  n.,  99,  121  n., 
123,  124,  168,  169  n.,  171  n., 
172  n.,  174  7i.,  177-183  and  ns., 
191,  212  and  n.,  216,  223  n.,  230 
n.,  23477.,  263,  326,  346  n.,  368 n. 
Thaumaturgus,  202 
Theagenes,  135 
Theodektes,  116 
Theodore  of  Heraklea,  227 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  33  n.,  125, 
211,  212,  222,  240  n.,  346  n. 
Theodoret,  123,  124  n.,  195  n., 
212  n.,  215,  219,  240 
Theodosius,  66  n. 

Theodotion,  221  n.,  224  n.,  229 
Theodotus,  126,  263 
Theognis,  138 
Theognostus,  202 

Theophilus  of  Antioch,  171,  179  n., 
208  n.,  227,  368  n. 

Theophrastus,  245  n. 

Theopompus,  116 
Thierry,  234  n.,  261  n. 

Thiersch,  416 
Thilo,  341  n. 

Thirlby,  172  n. 

Thirlwall,  Bishop,  297  n.,  369,  371, 
376,  411 

Tholuck,  230  n.,  260  n.,  269  n., 
294  n.,  343  n.,  358  n.,  364,  372, 
374,  383,  390,  401,  405,  411 
Thomasius,  255  n. 

Tibbon,  Ibn,  33  n. 

Tichonius,  24,  26  n.,  210,  237,  248 
Tillemont,  26  n  ,  202  and  n. 
Tillotson,  Archbishop,  348,  377 
Tindal,  377 
Tischendorf,  320  n. 

Tostatus,  279 
Tregelles,  320  n. 

Trench,  193  n.,  234  n.,  235  n  , 
237  n.,  239  n. 

Trenel,  19  n. 

Treveeka,  E.  Jones,  299  n. 
Tribbeehovius,  260  n.,  284 n.,  286 n., 
289  n.,  466,  470 
Trionfo,  Augustin,  309  n. 
Trithemius,  26  n.,  289  n.,  467 
Trypho,  174 
Turrecremata,  279 
Turretin,  G.  A.,  376 
Tunstall,  17 
Tyndale,  17,  300,  316 


Authors  continued — 

Ueberweg,  198  n.,  245  n.,  254  77., 
259  77.,  265  77.,  282  n.,  283  n. 
Uhllorn,  411 
XJlfilla,  Bishop,  40 
Ullmann,  258  77.,  280 77.,  312 77.,  411, 
415 

Umbreit,  33  77.,  411 
Ussher,  374,  377,  387,  428 

VACHEROT,  139  77.,  182  77. 

Yalcknaer,  128 
Yalens,  212 

Yalentinian,  168  77.,  177 
Valentinus,  181 77.,  308 
Yalla,  Lorenzo,  284,  312-314,  428 
Yallarsi,  240  77. 

Ya.lorius,  282  77.  , 

Van  Helmont,  36  n. 

Yan  Heusden,  282 
Van  Til,  376,  386 
Yatke,  412,  414 

Vaughan,  258  n.,  260  n.,  269-271  ns., 
279  77.,  289  77.,  313  n. 

Venema,  386 
Vertue,  353  77. 

Victorinus,  188,  196,  202,  227 
Vigilantius,  228  and  n. 

Villari,  279  77. 

Viucentius  Lerinensis,  179  77.,  182  77. 
326 

Virgil,  247  n. 

Yirgilius,  427 

Yitringa,  376,  379,  386,  389 
Vives  Ludovicus,  289  and  n.,  292  n., 
470 

Voetius,  379 
Yogel,  A.,  26  n. 

Volkmar,  416 
Voltaire,  17,  397,  400 
Yoss,  374,  379,  387 

W ace,  182  77.,  206  77.,  207  77.,  224 
Wachner,  52  n.,  59  n.,  61  n.,  76,  80 
Wagenseil,  92 
Wiihner,  389 

Walafrid  Strabo,  251  and  n. 

’Walch,  206  77.,  234  77.,  240  77.,  251  77., 
312  77.,  346  77. 

Walther,  374 
V^alton,  377 
Warburton,  377 
Wasmuth,  374 
Waterland,  353  n.,  460 
Watts,  Isaac,  377 

Weber,  19  n.,  51  n.,  57  n.,  59  n.,  61- 
63  ns. ,  66  n.,  69,  74,  91,  93,  95, 
98,  442 

Wegscheider,  408 


Index. 


509 


Authors  continued — 

Weigel,  374 

Weill,  51-54  w?.,  56  n.,  5/  n.,  59, 

62  n.,  63  n.,  70,  90,  462 
Weiss,  411,  415 
Weisz'acker,  325 
Wellhausen,  58  n.,  208  n. 

Werenfels,  30 
Werner,  255  77.,  292  n. 

Wernsdorf,  366 

Wesley,  John,  40  n.,  324,  390,  393 
Wessel,  John,  236  n.,  312  and  n., 

314 

Westcott,  155  n.,  186,  188  n.,  189 
n.,  207  n.,  209  n.,  220  n.,  223  n., 

254  n.,  316  n.,  409 
Wetstein,  93,  207  n.,  280,  376,  3/9, 
470 

Whichcote,  377 
Whitaker,  300,  377 
Whitby,  124  n.,  377 
Whitfield,  377 
Wiclif,  312,  313ti. 

Wildenhahn,  363  n. 

Williams,  78 
Winer,  234  n. 

AVitsius,  379  n.,  386 
AVitte,  363  n. 

AVittich,  379 

AVogue,  10,  11 77. ,  31  n. ,  32 t?.,  49/?., 
116  77. ,  117  77.,  442,  450,  455,  461 
AVoltf,  398,  399,  428,  461 
AVollius,  473  n. 

AVordsworth,  Bishop,  196  77. 
AVordswortli,  Professor,  458 

XENOPHANES,  127 
Zakkai,  Rabbi  Johanan  hen,  65 
Zeller,  416 

Zeno,  129  n,  136,  138 
Zockler,  33  n,,  366  n. 

Zunz,  49  77.,  62  77.,  69,  91,  92,  97 
118 

Zwingli,  319  77.,  322,  328,  331,  340- 
343,  349,  372 

Avicenna,  280  77. 

B. 

Babylonian  Gemara, completed  by  Rah 
Abina,  12  77.  . 

Bacon,  Lord,  attributes  the  paralysis  of 
science  to  theology,  41  n.,  his  re¬ 
marks  on  theological  compilations 
and  glosses,  251  n.  ;  on  monastic 
mysticism,  257  n.  ;  on  the  learning 
of  the  Schoolmen,  289  n.  ;  on  their 
useless  speculations,  293  and  n.  ;  on 
English  theologians,  353  n. 


Bacon,  Roger,  on  the  impossibility  of  a 
translation  to  convey  the  exact  sense 
of  the  original,  260  n.  ;  on  the  works 
of  Aristotle,  263  n.  ;  his  hostility  to 
Aristotle  and  the  Fathers,  266  n.  ; 
his  views  on  non-Biblical  branches  ot 
knowledge,  286  n.  ;  on  the  tlieologi 
of  the  12th  century,  310 
Bahrdt,  F.  A.,  his  influence  on  unbe¬ 
lief,  400 

Balfour  of  Burley,  352 
Bampton  Lectures,  one  of  the  founder  s 
objects  in  instituting  the,  5  ;  re¬ 
ference  to,  311  77. 

Bartholomew,  St.,  235 
Barnabas  and  his  Epistle,  estimate  or, 
and  of  the  influence  of  his  writings  on 
early  exegesis,  167-170  ;  number  ot 
quotations  from  the  Scriptures  in,. 
168  77  ;  analysis  of  the  Epistle  and  of 
its  allegorical  and  mystical  method, 
167-170 

Baronius,  282,  297 

Basil  the  Great,  one  of  the  leaders  or 
the  School  of  Antioch,  219;  he  stoutly 
opposes  allegory,  220  n. 

Baur,  Ferdinand,  his  account  of  the 
origin  of  the  allegoric  system  of 
interpretation,  194  n.  ;  his  attacks 
on  Christianity,  notice  of,  414- 
416 

Baxter,  on  the  over-magnifying  of  the 
Bible,  372 

Bede,  the  Venerable,  his  works,  influ¬ 
ence,  and  system  of  exegesis,  248  ;  is 
reckoned  among  the  Fathers,  249  n.  ; 
his  life,  301 

Bellarmine  on  exegesis,  296  n.  ;  on  the 
Papacy  before  the  Reformation,  31 3  ; 
on  the  prejudice  against  grammati¬ 
cal  studies,  321 

Bengel,  1  ;  the  life  and  labours  of, 
and  their  influence  on  the  theology 
and  exegesis  of  the  17th  century, 
392  ;  his  merits  as  a  man  and  as  an 
exegete,  392-394  ;  value  of  liis 
Gnomon,  393  and  n.  ;  and  of  his 
personal  and  critical  work,  393, 
394 

Berengar  asserts  that  God  is  a  logician, 
289 

Bernard,  St.,  the  father  of  the  mediaeval 
mystics,  his  influence  on  the  Church 
and  the  age,  255  ;  his  Homilies  and 
Commentary  on  the  Canticles,  257 
and  77.  ;  his  self-denial,  301 
Bemardites,  motto  of  the,  299 
Beth  and  Aleph,  remarks  on  the 
Hebrew  letters,  36 


510 


Index. 


Beza,  his  work  and  influence  on  the 
Reformation,  342  ;  regarded  by  the 
English  Reformers  as  the  greatest 
theologian  of  the  day,  342  n. 

Bible,  stands  alone  among  sacred  books 
as  the  record  of  a  progressive  revela¬ 
tion,  4  ;  qualifications  required  of 
translators  and  interpreters  of  the, 
4,  5  ;  the  Genoese,  5  n.  ;  the  Nurem¬ 
berg,  5  n. ;  assailed  by  modern  critics, 

5  ;  tendency  and  result  of  modern 
criticism,  5-8  ;  nature,  authors,  and 
object  of  the,  6-8  ;  meaning  of  the 
word,  6  n. ;  necessity  for  distinguish¬ 
ing  between  the  letter  and  the  spirit 
of  the,  7,8;  list  of  lost  books  referred 
to  in  the,  6,  7  ;  power  of  the,  on  the 
minds  of  believers,  7,  8  ;  duty  of  the 
believer  in  interpreting  the,  8  ;  con¬ 
tains  the  Word  of  God,  8  ;  how  it 
must  be  treated,  8  ;  origin  and  nature 
of  various  modes  of  exegesis  of  the, 
8-11  ;  seven  main  periods  and  sys¬ 
tems  of  interpretation  of  the,  12  ; 
misinterpretation  of  the,  among  the 
Jews,  elevated  into  a  sacred  prin¬ 
ciple,  12  7i.  ;  origin  of  the  methods 
adopted  during  these  periods,  13  ; 
the  power  and  grandeur  of  the,  still 
maintained,  notwithstanding  all  ad¬ 
verse  criticism,  13,  14  ;  what  the 
different  schools  of  exegesis  have 
done  for  the,  15  ;  its  enemies  in  all 
ages  impotent  to  weaken  or  destroy 
the  influence  of  the,  16  ;  enumera¬ 
tion  of  the  greatest  enemies  of  the, 
17  ;  injury  done  to  the,  from  mis¬ 
interpretations,  17  ;  seven  epochs  of 
criticism  as  applied  to  the,  18  et  seq.  ; 
the  seven  rules  of  Ilillel  as  applicable 
to  the,  18  n.  ;  wilful  distortion  of  the 
language  of  the,  26,27  and  n. ;  “  AY ord 
of  God  ”  cannot  be  applied  indiscrim¬ 
inately  to  all  the  books  of  the,  28  ; 
Dr.  Arnold  on  rightly  comprehend¬ 
ing  the,  28  n.  ;  the  word  Testament 
applied  to  the  two  divisions  of  the,  a 
mistranslation  and  a  mistake,  30  ;  mis¬ 
taken  conception  for  seventeen  cen¬ 
turies  of  the  design  of  the  First  Epistle 
of  St.  John,  31 ;  early  doubts  regarding 
the  authenticity  of  the  book  of  Eccle¬ 
siastes  in  the,  31  ;  various  hypotheses 
regarding  the  design  of  the  Song  of 
Solomon,  32,  33  ;  incompetency  of 
early  exegesis  to  render  correctly  the 
first  verse  of  the  first  chapter  of  the, 
34-38  ;  the  mistaken  interpretation 
of  this  verse  responsible  for  positive 


heresy,  37  ;  importance  to  mankind 
of  mistaken  interpretation  of  the, 
38  et  seq.  ;  explanation  of  the  fact 
that  the,  has  met  with  an  infinitude 
of  varying  and  opposite  interpreta¬ 
tions,  134  ;  the  eclecticism,  literalism, 
and  rationalising  of  Philo  results  in 
a  complete  perversion  of  the  mean¬ 
ing  of  the,  137-142  and  ns.  ;  Philo’s 
views  on  the  inspiration  of  the,  146, 
147  ;  extraordinary  notion  of  Philo 
and  others  regarding  the,  149  and  n.  ; 
the  two  finest  pieces  of  Biblical 
criticism  in  the  third  century  pro¬ 
duced  by  Dionysius  of  Alexandria 
and  Julius  Africanus,  206,  207  ; 
mystical  interpretation  of  the,  and 
its  results,  211  ;  views  of  the  founder 
and  teachers  of  the  school  of  Antioch 
on  the,  210  seq.  ;  Jerome’s  opinions 
on  the,  222  et  seq.  ;  St.  Augustine’s 
system  of  interpreting,  236  et  seq.  ; 
the  Venerable  Bede’s,  248  ;  St.  Ber¬ 
nard  and  the  mystics  on  the,  255  et 
seq.  ;  an  old  Pope’s  remark  on  the, 
258  n.  ;  views  of  Abelard  and  Peter 
Lombard  on  the,  259-263  ;  of  Alber- 
tus  and  of  Thomas  of  Aquino,  267- 
272  ;  of  Bonaventura,  272  ;  of 
Nicolas  of  Lyra,  274-278  ;  and  of 
Schoolmen  generally,  278-300  ;  ser¬ 
vices  of  Lorenzo  Yalla,  of  Jacques 
Le  Fevre,  of  Reuchlin,  and  of  Eras¬ 
mus  to  the,  312-322  ;  above  all,  of 
Luther,  323  et  seq.  ;  list  of  those 
who  maintained  the  single  sense  of 
in  the  16th  century,  328  n.  ;  views 
of  Melanchthon  and  Zwingli, 
341  ;  of  Calvin,  342  et  seq.  ;  of 
some  of  the  divines  of  the  post- 
Reformation  period,  367  et  seq.  ; 
of  Rathmann  of  Liibeck,  372;  of 
the  Dutch  divines,  379  ;  of  Spener, 
380  ;  of  Calixtus,  382  ;•  of  Spinoza, 
383  ;  of  Bohme,  384  ;  of  Koch,  385  ; 
ofCappellus,  386  ;  of-AVetstein,  391  ; 
of  Bengel,  392  ;  of  Lessing,  399  ; 
of  Reimarus,  400  ;  of  Sender,  402  ; 
of  Plerder,  405  ;  of  Kant,  407  ;  ot 
Schleiermacher,  409  ;  of  Hegel,  412  ; 
of  Strauss,  413  ;  of  Baur,  414  ;  oi 
Neander,  414  ;  of  divines  of  the 
English  Church,  420  et  seq.  ;  free¬ 
dom  of  modern  criticism  of  the, 
429 

Bible,  the  Mazarin,  the  first  printed 
book,  314 

Bibles  of  Humanity,  sacred  books  so 
called,  3 


Index . 


511 


Biblical  interpretation,  seven  mam 
periods  or  systems  of,  12 
Bibliolatry  of  the  Reformers,  and  the 
controversies  it  led  to,  369-376 
Biel,  Gabriel,  265  %.,  282 
Bilney,  martyr,  316 
Binder,  on  the  useless  questions  of  the 
Schoolmen,  292  %. 

Bishops  and  Presbyters,  Jerome  on  the 
original  identity  of,  230  %. 

Bohnie,  Jacob,  influence  of  his  mysti¬ 
cism,  in  liberating  the  Church,  384  ; 
touching  incident  at  his  death,  384 
Bolingbroke,  17 
Bologna,  316  n. 

Bonaventura,  on  the  fruit  of  sacred 
Scripture,  43  ;  influence,  of,  on  schol¬ 
astic  exegesis,  272  ;  his  system  of 
exegesis,  273  ;  the  character  of,  301 
Boniface  VIII.,  298  and  n. 

Books  which  have  become  sacred, 
exegesis  a  matter  of  necessity  for,  3 

Books  quoted  or  referred  to 

Abelard  (Remusat’s  Life  of),  259 
n. ,  466,  470 

Abhandl.  v.  freier  Untersuchen  d. 

Kanons,  403 
Aboda  Zara,  76 

Aboth,  18  %.,  22  %.,  32  %.,  57  61 

%.,  68  n. 

Aboth  of  Rabbi  Nathan,  57  68  %. 

Additiones,  278  and  %. 

Advancement  of  Learning,  251  %., 
263  %.,  289  %.,  293  %.,  470 
Ad.  Chronol.  Euseb. ,  130  n. 

Ad.  Ezech.  (Jerome),  118  %. 

Adv.  Gentes  (Arnobius),  167  %. 

Ad.  Magnes.  (Ignatius),  167  %. 

Adv.  Praxean  (Tertullian)  174  %. 
Adv.  Rufinum  (Jerome),  229  %. 

Ad.  Scapulam  (Cyprian),  41  %.,  180  n. 
Aelteste  Urkunde  des  Menschengo- 
schlechts,  407  n. 

Aglaophamus,  135  n. 

Aids  to  Faith,  476 
Alcuin,  247  n. 

Alex.  Religionsphil-os,  456 
Allgemeine  Deutsche  Bibliothek,  401 
Allegg.  Homer,  243 
Alter  Augustinus,  235  n. 

Alt.  Prot.  Dogmatik,  339  n. 

Altsyn.  Theol.,  19  %.,  62  63  %., 

66  %. ,  74  7i.,  98  %.,  442 
Analogy,  377 
Anct.  Hist.  180  n. 

Ancient  Saints,  221  %.,  251  ^n. 
Annales,  166  /«.,  289  297  %•»  467 


Books  continued — 

Annal.  d.  Universitat  zu  AA  ittenbeig, 

364  n. 

Ann .  Eccl.  232  n. 

Annott.  in  1  Tim.  i.  6  (Erasmus  s) 

310  n.,  313  n.,  318  n.,  320  and%., 

428 

Anselm,  266  n. 

Answer  to  Travers  (Hooker),  4/0 
Antibarb.  Bibl.  324 
Anti-Boehmius,  364 
Anticritica,  374 

Antid.  in  Cone.  Trident.,  353  n. 
Antiquitates  Theol.  Typicae,  386 
Antt.  (Josephus’s),  51  n.,  52  n.,  5 o 
n.,57n.,  61  n.,  66  n.,  115-117  ns., 
126  n.,  128  n.,  137  n.,  138  n. 

Antiq.  Ebr.,  52  n. 

Antitheses,  235,  351 
Apocalypse,  176,  206,  24/ 

Apol.  (Athenagoras),  171  n. 

Apol.  (Jus.  Martyr),  117  n.,  129  v. 
Apol.  (Melanchthon),  265  n. 

Apologia  (Robert  Stephens’s),  321 
Apol.  (Tertullian),  121  n. ,  178  n. 
Apol.  ad.  Helois  (Abelard),  261  n. 
Apol.  c.  Rufin.  (Jerome),  170  n. , 
187  n.,  202  %.,  222,  224  %. 

Apologie  of  the  Fathers,  the,  163  v. 
Apostol.  Fathers,  22/  n. 

Apparat.  (Calixtus’s),  46/ 

Apparatus  Criticus,  392^ 

Areopagitica,  164  n. ,  359  n. 

Arians,  209  %. 

Art.  Ev.  Homiletik,  38 1 
Art.  Logic.  Rudimenta,  247  n. 
Augustinus,  117  %.,  225  %. 

Aurel.  Augustinus,  239  n. 

Autolyc.,  179  n. 

Averroes,  264  %.,  265  and  %.,  2(0  %., 
404 

Avoda  Zara,  57  %■,  60  n. 

Baba  Metzia,  63  %. 

Baba  Bathra,  51  59  %.,  66_%.,  68  n. 

Bammidbar  Rabba,  86  n.,  87  n. 
Bampton  Lectures,  19o  %. ,  240  n. , 
266  %. ,  281  %.,  283  %.,  299  n. , 
300  n. 

Barnab.  Ep.,  165,  167-170  and  ns. , 
235  n. 

Beantwortung  der  Fragmente  eines 
Ungenannten,  404  n. 

Bechinath  Happerushiin,  100  n. 
Bedenken,  355 
Beresh.  Rabba,  120  %. 

Beitrage  zur  Gesch.  d.  iiltesten  Ausle- 
gung  in  Spracherklarung  d.  Alteu 
Testamentes,  462 


512 


Index. 


Books  continued — 

Bel.  J.  (Josephus),  115  n.,  136  n. 
Berachoth  Introd.,  463 
Berakhoth,  12  n.,  19  n.,  51  n.,  52 
n.,  61-63  ns.,  66  n. 

Bereshith  Rabba,  61  n.,  66  n. 
Bibelwerk,  33  n. 

Bible,  La,  enfin  Explique,  397 
Bibliotheca  Biblica,  353  n.  • 

Bibl.  Cod.,  137  n.,  166 
Bibl.  Graec.,  128  n.,  251  n. 

Bibl.  Hebraica,  461 

Biblia  lllustrata,  365,  397,  426 

Bibliography,  182  n. 

Bibl.  Hebr.,  36  n. 

Bibl.  Lat.,  277  n.,  280  n.,  313  n. 
Bibl.  Med.,  251  n. 

Bibl.  Orient.  53  n. 

Bibl.  Max.  Patristica,  24  n. 

Bibl.  Patristica,  24  n.,  128  n.,  219, 
234  n. 

Bibl.  Rabb.,  82,  93 
Bibl.  Sacr.,  277  n .♦ 

Bibl.  Sanct.,  36  n.,  238  n.,  249  n., 
274  n.,  291  n. 

Bibliotheca  Sancta,  460 
Bibl.  Theol.  Epitome,  278  n.,  346  n. 
Biogr.  Hist,  of  Philosophy,  253  n., 
291 

Bitsa,  65  n. 

Brand eburgicum,  359 
Breviloq.  Prooem.,  43  n. 

Breviloq.,  259  n. 

Briefe  das  Studium  d.  Theologie 
betreffend,  321,  325,  380,  407 
Briefe  liber  das  Studium  der  Theo¬ 
logie,  91 

Calendarium  Etymologicum,  286  n. 
Calvinus  Judaisans,  346 
Carm.  (Paulinus),  166  n. 

Cant.  181  n.,  239  n. 

Catal.  (Jerome’s),  142,  174  n.,  180 
n.,  182  n. ,  183  n.,  187  n.,  202  n., 
203  n.,  205,  207  n.,  209  n.,  213 
n.,  223  n. 

Cat.  S.  E.,  (Trithemius),  289  n. 
Catal.  test.  Verit.,  277  n.,  364  n. 

Cat.  Yirr.  Illustr.,  206  n. 

Catena  Aurea,  204,  221  n.,  251  n., 
253,  269  n.,  270  n. 

Caten.  Praef.  in,  250  n. 

Catholic  Thoughts,  403 

Celestial  Hierarchies,  254  n.,  313  n. 

Centilogium,  281  n. 

Chagiga,  20  n.,  35  n.,  57 n.,  63  n.  477 
Characterismi,  282  n. 

Charges  (Bishop  Thirlwall’s),  297  n., 
369,  371,  376 


Books  continued — 

Christian  Biogr.,  81 
Christi  Blut  und  Gerechtigkeit,  390 
Christliche  Giaubenslehre,  412 
Christologie,  277  n.,  418 
Christlutherische  Y orstellung,  363  n. 
Chron.  Praef.  in,  224  n. 
Chrysostomus,  220-222  ns. 

Chulin,  81  n. 

Church  Hist.  (Neander),  133  n. , 
180  n.,  181  n.,  184  n.,  194  n., 
202  n.,  209  n.,  212  n. 

Church  of  the  Catacombs,  232  n. 
Clavis  Scripturae  Sacrae,  24  n.,  328, 
333,  342  and  n.,  364 
Clement  d’Alexandrie,  187  n. 

Cod.  (Photius),  100,  201  n.,  202  n., 
206  n.,  207  n.,  214  n.,  254  n. 

Cod.  Ah,  124  n. 

Colloquies  (Erasmus’s),  280  n. ,  320, 
322 

Cohort.  (Justin  Martyr),  129  n.,  156, 
172  n.,  174  n. 

Coheleth,  31  n.,  105 
Commentaries,  353  n. 

Comm,  in  Acts  (Jerome),  230  n. 
Comm,  in  Amos  (Jerome),  232  n. 
Comm,  in  Eph.  (Jerome),  231  n., 
232  n. 

Comm,  in  Esaiam  (Jerome),  231  n., 
232  n. 

Comm,  in  Ezech.  (Jerome),  230  n., 
232  n. 

Comm,  in  Gal.  (Jerome),  231'  n., 
232  n. 

Comm,  in  Gen.  (Jerome),  328 
Comm,  in  Isaiam.  (Jerome),  87 
Comm,  in  Jer.  (Jerome),  232  n., 
234  n. 

Comm,  in  Joel  (Jerome),  353  n. 
Comm,  in  Matt.  (Jerome),  200  n., 
229  n.,  231  n. 

Comm,  in  Mich.  (Jerome),  224  n., 
231  n. 

Comment,  du  H.  T.  (R.  Simon),  234  n. 
Comm,  in  Osee  (Jerome),  232  n. 
Comm,  in  Tit.  (Jerome),  231  n. 
Commentary  of  Ambrosiaster,  the, 
206  n. 

Commentary  on  the  Pauline  Epistles, 
361  n. 

Comm,  on  Rom.  (Origen),  171  n. 
Commentary  on  Zachariah,  464 
Commonitor,  179  n.,  326,  333 
Compendium  Theologiae,  362 
Complutensian  Polyglot,  317  n. 

Cone.  Trident,  333,  467 
Confes.  (Augustine’s),  234  n.,  236 
n.,  237  7i. 


Index. 


513 


Books  continued — 

Confessio  Belgica,  349  n.,  359  n. 
Confessio  Gallicana,  349  n.,  359  n. 
Confessio  (of  the  Greek  Church), 
361  n.,  393 

Confessio  Hafnica,  359%. 

Confessio  Helvetica  Posterior,  359 
Confessio  Marchica,  359  n. 

Confessio  Saxonica,  359  n. 

Confessio  Scotica,  359  n. 

Confessio  Tetrapolitana,  359 
Connection,  76 

Consensus  Repetitus,  359,  363 
Constt.  dementis  V.  in  Cone.  Vien¬ 
ne  n  si.  316  n. 

Contemp.  Rev.,  188  n.,  254  n. 

C.  Academ.  (Augustine),  282  n. 

C.  Adimant.  (Augustine),  234,  236 
n.,  476 

C.  Apion  (Josephus),  115  n.,  116  n., 
121  n.,  128  n.,  130  n.,  136  n. 

C.  Cels.  (Origen),  169  n.,  174  n., 
185  n.,  187  n.,  194  n.,  195  n., 
197  n. 

C.  Ep.  Manich  (Augustine),  236 
Contra  Epist.  Parmeniani,  26  n. 

C.  Faustum  (Augustine),  123  n. 

C.  Hermog.  (Tertullian),  177  n., 
178  n. 

C.  Flacc.  (Philo),  115  n.,  137  n. 

C.  Jud.  (Tertullian),  123  n. 

C.  Marc.  (Tertullian),  30  n.,  123  n., 
124  n.,  169  n.,  178  n. 

C.  Praxeam.  (Tertullian),  38  n.,  178 
n. 

Coran,  the,  119  rt. 

Corinthians,  the,  296  n. 

Corp.  Apolog.,  172  n. 

Corpus  Julium,  359 
Corpus  Pomeranicum,  359 
Corpus  Prutenicum,  359 
Corpus  Wilhelminum,  359 
Correctoria  Biblica,  260  n. 
Correctoria,  274  n. 

Cours  de  l’Hist. ,  253  n. 

Cours  de  Politique  Positive,  308  n. 
Credibility,  185  n. 

Critici  Sacri,  23  n.,  386,  387,  389, 

421 

Criticism  and  Interpretation,  300  w,. 
Cyclopaedia  (Kitto’s),  19  n.,  73,  95, 
102 

Darki  Leslion  Hakkodesh,  83 
Das  Akadem.  Leben,  358  n. 

Das  Judenthum,  56  n. 

Das  Kirchl.  Leben,  374 
De  Abbreviaturis,  83,  98  n.,  99,  101, 
104 


Books  continued — - 

De  Abrah.,  129  n.,  133  n.,  139  n., 
149,  151,  454,  456 

De  Act.  et  Script.  M.  Lutheri,  ad 
ann.,  317  n. 

De  Accentibus,  315  n. 

De  Agric.,  132  n. 

De  Alex.  Virt.,  114  n. 

De  Allegoria  et  Historia,  216  n. 

De  Anim.,  177  n. ,  182  n. 

De  Antilogiis,  271 

De  Arte  Kabbalistica,  97  n.,  315  n. 

De  Augm.  Scient.,  257  n.,  289  n., 
340  n. 

De  Baptismo,  178  n. 

De  Beatitudine  Mortuorum,  363  n. 

De  Bibl.  Text.  Orientalibus,  116  n., 
117  n.,  120  n. 

De  Civ.  Dei.,  30  n.,  117  n.,  125,  208 
n.,  234  n.,  238  n.,  282  n. 

De  Cherub.,  132  n.,  140  n.,  142  n., 
149,  155,  455 

De  Christo  et  Antichristo,  201  n. 

De  Clement.  Alex.,  129  n. 

De  Clemente  Presbytero  Alexandrine, 
187  n. 

De  Clementia,  343  n. 

De  Clericorum  Institutione,  297 
De  Conf.  Ling.,  147 
De  Cong.  Erud.  Grat.,  114  n.,  132 
n.,  137  n.,  147,  151 
De  Cong.  Quaer.,  133  n. 

De  Cons.  Ev.,  125  n. 

De  Cons.  Evang.  236  n. 

De  Copia  Rerum,  321 
De  Contemplatione,  258  n. 

De  Cor.  Mit.,  178  n. 

De  Corrupt.  Art.,  289  n.,  292 n.,  470 
De  Cult.  Fern.,  178  n. 

De  Dilig.  Deo,  256 
De  Dionysii,  254  n. 

De  Divinatione,  138  n. 

De  Div.  Nat.,  254  n. 

De  Doctr.  Christ,  26  %.,  117  n., 
125  n.,  129  n.,  225  n.,  234  n., 
235-238  ns.,  459 
De  Doctrina  Inspirations,  403 
De  Doctoribus  Scholasticis  et  Cor- 
rupta  per  eos  div.  hum.  rerum 
Scientia,  284  n.,  286  n.,  289  n., 
466 

De  Dogmate  Platonis,  282  n. 

De  Ebriet.,  137  n.,  141  n. 

De  Economia  Patrum,  231  n. 

Decret.,  298  n. 

De  Eruditione,  265  n. 

De  Execrationibus,  154,  458 
Defensor  Pads,  164  n.,  236  n.,  282  n. 
De  Frat.  Amore,  383 

L  L 


514 


Index. 


Books  continued — 

De  Fide,  39  n.,  166  n.,  168  n., 
174  n.,  206  n.,  263  n.,  459 
Def.  Triun.  Capit.,  216  n. 

De  Gen.  ad  Literam,  43  n.,  237  n., 
243 

De  Gigant.,  23  to.,  141  n. 

Diss.  Hist,  de  vii.  regulis  Tichonii, 
26  n. 

De  Idol.,  178  n. 

De  Incorrupt.  Mundi,  138  n. 

De  Institutione  Div.  Literarum,  24  n. 
De  Inst.  Monach.,  203  n. 

Die  Inspirationslehre,  294  n. 

De  Inspir.  S.  Script.,  294  n. 

DeJ.  Cocceio  anti-scliolastico,  385 
De  Joseph.,  109,  129  n.,  139  n.,  455, 
456 

De  J.  S.  Semler,  405 
De  Jure  Belli  et  Pacis,  40  to. 

De  Juvent.,  64  n. 

De  Legis  Allegoriis,  22  n. 

De  Martis  Stella,  41  n. 

De  Med.  Aevi.  theol.  exeget.,  251, 
285  n. 

Dem.  Evang.,  124  n.,  174  n. 

De  Migr.  Abr.,  23  n.,  133  n.,  137  n., 
140  to.,  149,  151,  152 
De  Monarchia,  154,  298  n.,  313  n. 

De  Monogam.,  178  n.,  179  n. 

De  Norn.  mutat.,  133  n.,  137  n., 
138  n.,  143 n.,  152 
De  Mundi  exustione,  251  n. 

De  Nupliis,  257 

De  Nat.  Deor.,  135  to.,  136  n.,  144  n. 
De  Obitu  Theodosii,  124 
De  Offic.,  206  n. 

De  Off.  Sex.  Dierum.,  38  n. 

De  Opif.  Mund.,  38  n.,  121  n.,  138  n., 
142  to.,  143  n.,  456 
De  Optimo  Genere  Interpretandi, 
24  n. 

De  Ordine,  247  n. 

De  Parent.  Col.,  145 

De  Plant.  Noe.,  133  n.,  143  to.,  149 

De  Origine  Yerbi  Dei,  339  n. 

De  Partibus  Legis  Divinae,  24  to. 

De  Patient.,  180  n. 

DePeccat.  Remiss.,  238  n. 

De  Perfect.  Monach.,  228  n. 

De  Pond.,  117  n.,  119  n. 

De  Poster.  Caini,  130  n. 

De  Potestate  Ecclesiee,  309  n.,  428 
De  Praescriptione  Ilaereticorum,  99, 
178-183  ns. 

De  Princ.,  169  n.,  182  n.,  187  n., 
190ti.,  193  7i.,  196ti.,  197  7i.,  333 
•  De  Proem,  et  Poen.  (Philo),  142  n., 
458 


Books  continued \ — * 

De  Profug.  (Philo's),  23  n. ,  37  n. 

De  Pudic.,  30  n.,  173  n.,  177 n.,  212  n. 
De  Provid.,  130  n.,  137  n.,  142  n. 

De  Rat.  Yer.  Theol.,  290  n. 

Der  Christliche  Glaube,  411 
De  Rege,  39  n.,  40  n. 

De  Rhetorica,  327 
De  Repub.,  135  n.,  187  n. 

De  Resurr.  Carnis,  278  n.,  179  n. 

Der  mosaische  Recht.,  86 
Der  Unterschied  d.  Heil  Schrift  und 
des  Wortes  Gottes,  403 
De  Revolutionibus  Orbium  Coel- 
estium,  426 

De  Sacra  Poesi  Hebraeorum,  377 
De  S.  Script.  Interpret.,  124  n. 

De  Sacrif.  Ab.  et.  Cain,  23  n.,  151, 
258  n. 

De  Scala  Jacobi,  386 
De  Scholia  Antiochena,  216  n. 

De  Scbol.  Alex.,  201  n.,  206  n. 

Des  Comment,  du  N.  T.,  380 
De  Scripto  Dei  Verbo,  475 
De  Script.  Eccl.,  26  to.,  301  n., 
467 

De  Septem  Regulis,  24  n. 

De  Septuag.  Interpp.,  119  to. 

Des  Juden  Philo  Buch.  d.  Welt- 
schopfung,  142  to. 

De  Sohriet.,  146 

De  Somniis,  22  to.,  38  to.,  120  to., 
132  to.,  139  to.,  141  to.,  142  to.,  149, 
151,  152,  455-457 

De  Spec.  Legg.,  129  to.,  137  to. 

139  to.,  152,' 177  to. 

De  Studio  Scriptuarum,  24  n. 

De  Studiis  Instituendis,  243,  263  to. 
De  Synod.,  168  to.,  174  to. 

De  Text.  Bibb,  223  to. 

De  Theod.  Mops.  Yita  et  Scriptis, 
216  to.,  219  w. 

De  Thom.  Aquin.,  260  to. 

De  Trim,  170  to.,  205  to.,  234  to. 

De  Turbata  per  Recentiores  Platonicos 
Eccl.,  283  to. 

De  Usu  Patrum,  187  to. 

Deutsche  Mystiker,  258  to. 

De  Vanitat.  Scient.,  470 
De  Yaria  Aristotelis  Fortuna,  266  to. 
Development  of  Christian  Doctrine, 
407 

De  Yerbo  Dei,  296  to.,  326 
De  Yerbo  Mirifico,  129  to.,  315  to. 

De  Yer.  Rel.,  234  to. 

De  Yest.  Sacerdotali,  226  to. 

De  Virg.,  180  to. 

De  Virr.  Illustr.,  26  to. 

De  Yit.  Contempl.,  137  to.  156 


Index. 


~  -t  * 

olo 


Bonks  continued. — 

De  Voluptate  et  Yero  Bono,  313  n. 
Dial.,  123  n.,  166  n.,  172-174  ns>, 
223  n.,  247  n. 

Diatribe  deAristobulo  Jttdaeo,  128  n. 
Diatessaron,  171  n. 

Dictionnaire,  360  n. 

Diet,  of  Christ.  Antiquities,  170  n. 
Diet,  of  Christian  Biogr.,  126  n. 

Diet,  of  Christ.  Biog.,  167  n.,  168  ?t., 
176  n.,  224  n. 

Diet,  of  S.  Script.,  294  n. 

Diet,  des  Sciences  Philos.,  463 
Dictionary,  Smith’s,  223  n. 

Die  Aogelologie  der  nachscottischen 
Scholastik,  292  n. 

Die  apost.  Vater,  168  n. 

Die  Christliclie  Gnosis,  139  n. 

Die  Kabbala,  130  n.,  134  n. 

Die  Lehre  Luther’s  von  der  heil. 

Schrift,  339  n.,  358  n. 

Die  Pharisaeru.  Sadd.,  58  n. 

Die  Rel.  Eigentliumlichkeit  d.  ref. 

undLuth.  Kirche,  372 
Die  Theologie  Semlers,  405 
Die  Universitaten  sonst  und  jetst, 
365  n. 

Die  Yerdienste  Calvin’s  als  Ausleger 
der  Heiligen  Schrift,  343  n. 

Disc,  sur  PHist.  Lit.  de  France, 
306  n. 

Discussio  Controversiarum,  364 
Dispute  on  Holy  Scripture,  300  n. 
Dissertation,  296  n. 

Dissert,  de  Scriptis  Dionysio  Sup- 
positis,  428 

Divine  Authority  of  the  Holy  Scrip¬ 
tures,  374 

Divine  Legation,  377 
Doctrine  of  Sacred  Script.,  383 
Dogmata,  288  n. 

Dogmatik  d.  apocr.  Schriften,  60  n. 
Dogmengesch.,  289  n.,  467 
Dubia  Yexata,  374 
Dreieinigkeit,  368  n. 

Dunciad,  278  n. 

Dutch  Republic,  41  n. 

Early  Days  of  Christianity.,  120  n.y 
137  n.,  141  7i.,  177  n. 

Ebraeorum  Philos.,  101 
Eccl.  Hist.,  179  n.,  180  n.,  194  n. 
Eccl.  Pol.,  243,  344  n. ,  353  n.,  Si  - 
Ecoles  de  l’Occident,  Les,  247  n. 
Edict  of  Nantes,  235 
Eglise  Chretienne,  L’,  174  n. 

Eglise  et  l’Empire,  L’,  209  *. 

Egypt  and  the  1  ive  Books  of  Closes, 

120  n. 


Books  continued— 

Eine  Rede  vom  Auslegen,  19  n.,  21  n.y 
274  n. 

Einleit.  (De  Y7ette),  142  n. 

Einleit.  (Haver nick),  119  n. 

Einl.  in  die  Offenbarung,  207  n. 
Eirechin,  109  » 

Elias  Levita,  84,  104 
Encom.  Moriae,  289  n.,  293  n.,  322 
Enchirid.  Mil.  Christ.,  321 
Ennead,  255  n. 

Entdecktes  Judenthnm,  65  n.,  93, 
105 

Ep.  ad  African.  (Origen),  118  n., 
119  n. 

Ep.  ad  Algas.  (Jerome),  171  n.,  231  n., 
232  n. 

Ep.  ad  Amphiloch.  (Basil'-,  206  n. 

Ep.  ad  Coi.,  122  n.,  166  n. 

Ep.  ad  Diognet.  (Ignatius),  168  n., 
171  n. 

Ep.  ad  Heliodor.  (Jerome),  229  n. 

Ep.  ad  Hieron.  (Augustine),  231  n. 
Ep.  ad  Innocent.  (Bernardi),  261  n. 
Ep.  ad  Joan.  Jerosol.  (Epiphanius), 
208  n. 

Ep.  ad  Laetam.  (Jerome),  257  n. 

Ep.  ad  Leandrum  (Gregory  of  Tours), 
247  n. 

Ep.  ad  Magnum  (Jerome),  208  n. 

Ep.  ad  Marcell.  (Jerome),  203  n. 

Ep.  ad  Paulin.  (Jerome),  30tl,  49  n. 
Ep.  ad  Pammach.  (Jerome),  232  n. , 
454 

Ep.ad  Papam  Innocent.  (St. Bernard), 
469 

Ep.  ad  Philad.  (Ignatius),  172  n. 

Ep.  ad  Spalat  (Luther),  321 
Ep.  ad  Yirg.  Paracl.  (Abelard), 
257  n. 

Ep.  Barnab.,  165,  167-170  ns.,  23o 
n. 

Epistola  Defensoria,  282 
Ep.  Parmeniani  (Augustine),  30  n. 
Epistolae  Obscurorum  Virorum,  296, 
316 

Ep.  (Augustine),  224  n. 

Ep.  (Bernard),  260  n. 

Ep.  (Erasmus),  314  n.,  315  n., 

319  w.,  320  n. 

Epp.  (Gregory  the  Great),  246  n. 

Ep.  (Jerome’s),  182  n.,  202  n.,  205  n., 
206  n.,  208  n.,  ‘ITl  n.,  230  n. 
Erasmus  (Life  of),  321 
Erasmus,  Blasphemies  and  Impieties 
of,  320 

Ersch.  und  Griiber’s  Encykl.,  30  »., 
115  n.,  385  n. 

’Erubin,  62  n.,  63  n.,  65  n.,  68  n.,  441 

L  L  2 


51G 


Index. 


Books  continued — 

Eruditis  Didascaliae,  26  n.,  252 
and  n.,  257-259  ns.,  273  n.,  295  n. 
Essai  snr  T  Indifference,  308  n. 

Esaiam,  224  n.,  231  n.,  232  n. 

Essays  in  Divinity,  294  n. 

Essays,  Milman’s,  319  n. 

Ess.  on  Development,  170  n.,  176  n. 
Essay  on  Man,  254%. 

Essay  on  the  Human  Understanding, 
290  n. 

Ethical  Studies,  39  n, 

Etudes  sur  St.  Aug.,  236  n. 
Euthetiens,  266%. 

Evang.  ad  Damasum,  Praef.  in,  224  %. 
Evangelische  Kirchenzeitung,  417 
Evenings  with  the  Sceptics,  235  %., 
236%. 

Exam.  Theol.  373 

Exercitationes  Biblicae,  225%.,  297, 
387 

Exegese  and  Hill  el,  18%. 

Expositor,  the,  88,  215  %.,  219-221 
ns. ,  223  n.,  451,  454 
Ezechiel  und  Philo,  128  %. 

Fables  of  the  Popes,  313  %. 

Farrago  Rerum  Theologicarum,  312, 
351  %. 

Fascic.  Theol.  19%.,  313%. 

Federal  Theology,  385 
Florence  et  ses  Vicissitudes,  283  %. 
Fons  Scientiae,  464 
Formula  Concordiae,  351  %.,  359, 
360,  368%.,  374 

Fragm.  Ep.  ad  Greg.  Thaumat., 
183  %. 

Fragmenta  Hist.  Gr.,  128  %. 
Fragments  (Richter),  137  %. 
Fragments  (Philo),  264  %. 

France,  La,  Protestante,  343  %. 

Free  Enquiry,  163  n. 

Free  Thought,  412 
Friend,  the,  281  %. 

Fortnightly  Review,  308  n. 


Galatians  (Lightfoot’s),  188%., 
213%.,  219%.,  220%. 

Gedanken  liber  Evangelische  Walir- 
heiten,  390 

Genesis,  72,  74,  77,  224%. 

Germ.  Protestantism,  405 
Germ.  Rationalism,  391,  406,  407, 
409 

Gesch.  (Ewald),  67%.,  130%. 
Geschichte  (Reuss),  134%. 

Gesch.  d.  Heilig.  Schrift.,  96,  343  %., 
375,  376 


Books  continued — 

Gesch.  d.  Israelites  51  %.,  54  %., 
61  %.,  66-68  ns. ,  87 
Gesch.  d.  Juden.,  53  %.,  128  %., 
277%.,  462 

Gesch.  d.  Jud.  Poesie,  128%. 

Gesch.  d.  Logik,  264  %.,  267%. 

Gesch.  d.  neuest.  Theol.,  411,  413 
Gesch.  d.  Philos.,  224  %.,  231  %., 
236  %.,  255  %. 

Gesch.  d.  Prot.  Dogmatik,  386 
Gesch.  d.  Prot.  Med.,  363%. 

Gesch.  d.  rel.  Secten  d.  Juden,  102 
Gesch.  d.  Schrifterklarung,  277  %., 
305,  313%.,  343%.,  374 
Gesch.  d.  Volkes  Israels,  51  %., 
116%.,  117%.,  119%.,  125%. 
Geschichtsbilder,  66%.,  68%.,  70, 

78 

Glossa  Ordinaria,  268  %.,  277, 

286  %. 

Glossules,  296  %. 

Gnomon,  392  .393 
Gospel  Harmony,  342  %. 

Gottes  d.  Vortrage,  49  %.,  62  %.,  69, 
118  %. 

Great  Light,  the,  461 
Greg.  v.  Nyssa,  202  %. 

Grundriss,  299  %.,  240  n.,  363,  407, 
473 

Haeb..  (Irenaeus’s),  99,  100,  117  %., 
119  %.,  122-124  ns.,  166  %.,  168 
%.,  170  %.,  174-179  ns.,  182  %., 
186  %.,  202  %.,  208  %.,  212  %. 
Haer.  (Epiphan. ),  119%. 
Haereticorum  Catalogus,  362  %. 
Halach.  Exegese,  105 
Handb.  d.  Theol.  Wissenschaften, 
366  %. 

Harmon.  Biblica,  374 

Hagad.  Exegese,  149 

Hebraica  Veritas,  315 

Hebr.  Lit.,  78,  90,  92,  93,  95,  100 

Helvet.  Conf.,  349  %. 

Henry  VI. (Shakespeare’s), 246  and  %. 
Hermeneutica  Sacra,  374,  376,  379 
Hermen.  (Klausen’s),  26  %.,  243, 

386,  391 

Hermeneutik  (Dopke’s),  76,  277  %., 
342-344  ns. 

Hermen.  Vorbereit.,  473 
Hexaem.,  38  %.,  202  %.,  208  %., 

220  %. 

Herzog,  223  %.,  250  %.,  264  %. 
Hibbert  Lectures,  308  %.,  312  %., 
322,  343  %.,  361%. 

Hieronymus,  223,  224  %. 
Hierarchies,  on  the,  223,  300  %.,  334 


Index. 


517 


Books  continued — 

Historia  LXII.  Interpr.,  116  n. 
Historia  Doctorum  Mitlinicorum, 

53  n. 

Historia  Syncretism.,  383 
Hist.  (Tacitus’s),  121  n. 

Hist.  Antiquior  sent.  Eccl.  Grace. 

de  Accommodatione,  404 
Histoire  de  la  Bible,  31  n. ,  32  n., 
49  n.,  117  n.,  442,  450,  461 
Hist,  of  Cambr.,  264  n. 

Hist.  Crit.  der  Comment.,  171  n., 
202  n. 

Hist.  Crit.  des  Comment,  du  N.  T., 
343  n. 

Hist,  des  Comment.,  252  n.,  268  %. 
Hist.  Crit.  des  Versions  du  N.  T. 
229  n. 

Hist.  Critique  du  VieilTest.,  130  n., 
361  n.,  380 

Hist,  de  la  Civilisat.  Chret.,  223  %. 
Hist,  oftbe  Christian  Church,  362  n. 
Hist,  of  Civilis.,  40  n. 

Hist.  Comp.,  466 
Hist,  of  Doctrines,  230  n. 

History,  Ecclesiastical  (Eusebius), 
17  n.,  119%.,  129%., 137%.,  181  n., 
182  n.,  185  n.,  198%.,  201%., 

202  %.,  206-209  ns.,  212  %.,  213%. 
Hist.  Eccl.  introd.,  248  %. 

Histoire  de  l’Ecole  d’Alex.  (Matter), 
115%. 

Hist,  de  l’Ecole  d’Alex.  (Vacherot), 
139%. 

Hist,  of  Eng.  Bible,  316  %. 

Hist,  of  Europ. ,  39  %. 

Hist.  Franc.,  246  %. 

Hist.  Interp.,  186  %.,  201-203  ns., 
212  %.,  234  %.,  267  %.,  275  %., 
277  %.,  296  %. 

Hist,  of  Isr.,  51%.,  53%.,  57%., 
58  %.,  96 

Hist,  of  the  .Tews,  78,  92,  462 
Hist.  Lit.,  26%. 

Hist.  Lit.  de  France,  247  %.,  251  %., 
262  %.,  289  %. 

Hist.  Lit.  Theol.,  385 
Hist.  Litt.  Nachricht  von  Phil. 
Melanchthon’s  Verdiensten  urn  die 
lieilige  Sclirift,  341  %. 

Hist.  Eat.,  114%. 

Hist,  of  Rationalism,  40%. 

Hist,  of  Ref.,  372 

Hist,  de  la  Philos.,  245  %. ,  24/  %. , 
259%.,  262%.,  283  n.,  470 
Hist,  of  Prot.  Theol.,  309  %.,  358  %. 
Hist.  Sap.  et  Stult.,  467 
Hist,  of  Second  and  Third  Cent., 
187%. 


Books  continued — 

Hodosophia,  362 
Holy  City,  78 
Holy  Living,  43  %. 

Horn,  in  1  Cor.  (Chrysostom),  221%. 
Horn,  in  Exod.  (Origen),  197 
198%. 

Homil.  in  Ezech.  (Gregory),  23  %. 
Horn,  in  Gen.  (Origen),  183%., 

194  %.,  197%.,  198%.,  208  %., 

222 %.,  238  %. 

Horn  in  Joann,  viii.  (Origen),  196%., 
198%.,  200  %.,  208  %. 

Horn.  x.  in  Jer.  (Origen),  123%. 

Horn,  in  Jerem.  (Origen),  193  %. 

Horn,  in  Levit.  (Origen),  169%., 
187%.,  194%.,  196%.,  197%. 

Horn,  in  Luc.  (Origen),  179%., 

208  %. 

Horn,  in  Matt.  (Origen),  190%., 

209  %.,  212  %.,  222  %. 

Horn,  in  Hum.  (Origen),  197%., 

198%. 

Horn,  in  Rom.  (Origen),  199%., 

236  %. 

Horn,  in  Tit.  (Origen),  187  %. 

Horn,  in  Jos.  (Jerome),  198  %. 
Horaioth,  442 

Hugues  de  St.  Victor,  258%., 
265%. 

Hypotyp.,  185%. 

Plystaspes,  172,  185  and%. 

Idea  Boni  Interpretis,  376 
Illustrations  of  Med.  Thoughts, 
468 

Inferno,  the,  313%. 

Inspiration  of  Scripture,  on  the, 
294  %. 

Institutiones  Hermen.  Sacrae,  239  %. , 
371,  376 

Institt.  (Cassiodorus’s),  26  %. 

Instt.  Div.  (Lactantius),  30  %.,  41  %., 
123  %.,  170  %. 

Institutes  (Calvin’s),  349  %.,  350  %., 
361 

Inst.  Interpr.  (Ernesti),  4%.^ 
Interpretandi  Ratio  a  J.  J.  W etsteino 
adhibita,  392 

Introd.  in  Hermeneuticam,  473 
Introd.  a  la  Philosophie  de  Hegel, 
413 

Introd.  ad  Theol.,  269  %. 

Invect.  in  Hieron.,  188%.,  205  %., 
206  %. 

Iphigenia  in  Tauris,  5  %. 

Isagoge,  202%.,  203%.,  205  %. 

251%.,  252  %.,  272  %.,  277  %., 

278  %.,  346  %.,  376,  380,  461,  466 


518 


Index . 


Books  continued — ■ 

Jalqtjt  Shiineoni,  83  n. 

J.  Arndt,  ein  Zeitbild,  363  n. 
Jahrbiicher,  420 

Jerome,  St.  (Amedee  Thierry  s), 
234  n. 

Jesus  und  Hillel,  67  n. 

Jesus  von  Nazara,  67  n.,  113  n., 
142  n.,  335 
Jetsirah,  97 

Jewish  Church,  116%.,  121  %.,  131  n. 
Jewish  World,  449 
Joel,  213  %.,  218  %.,  219  %.,  268  %., 
270  %.,  275  n.,  277  %.,  343  %., 
349  %.,  352  %. 

Joma,  66  %. 

Journ.  of  Class,  and  Sacr.  Philol., 
213  n. 

Journal  Intime,  355 
Journ.  Sacr.  Lit.,  230  n. 

Juda'isme,  Le,  6,  51  %.,  53  %.,  56  %., 
88,  89,  92,  363,  462 
Judenthum,  19  %.,  52  %.,  64-66  ns., 
68  %.,  74,  77,  128  %.,  143  %.,  148, 
462 

Judenth.  u.  Heidenth.,  139  n. 

K  abb  ala,  the,  36  %.,  96,  97  and  %., 
446 

Kethuboth,  59  n. 

Ketzereye,  240%. 

Kirche  und  Kirchenthum,  323 
Kirchengeschichte,  265  %. 

Koheieth,  462 

Koran,  the,  28  %.,  53  and  %.,  119  %., 
275  %. 

Kulter-gesch.,  82 
Kulter  und  Lit.,  66  %. 

Latin  Christianity,  248  %.,  254  %., 
298  %.,  301  %.,  316%. 

La  Legge,  86 

Laurentii  Medici  Yita,  282  %. 
Lebend.  M.  Luther,  Erste  Pred.,  324 
Leben  Jesu,  fur  das  Deutsche  Yolk 
bearbeitet,  413,  414,  416 
Leben  und  Werken  Bengels,  392 
Leben  Zinzendorf,  390 
Lectures,  Bampt.,  195  %.,  240  %., 
266  %. 

Lectures  on  Universal  Subjects,  470 
Leg.  ad  Gaium,  114  %.,  137  %. 

Legis  Allegoriae,  129  %.,  138  %., 
141  %.,  143  %.,  146,  149,  150,  457 
Letters  to  King,  364  %. 

Letters  to  Kadulphus,  286  %.,  404 
Legat. ,  179  %. 

Lex  Chald.,  446 

Lex  Talm. ,  74,  86,  96,  101 


Books  continued — ■ 

Libelli  ad  Crisin,  391 
Libellus  de  Canonicis  Scripturis, 
341  %. 

Libellus  de  Formulis,  24  %. 

Liber  Formularum  Spiritalis  Intelli- 
gentiae,  24  and  %. 

Liberty  of  Prophesying,  329 
Liber  Allegoriarum,  250,  251  %. 

Lib,  c.  Object.  Fredegisii,  252  %. 
Lieder  der  Liebe,  407 
Life  of  Christ,  121  %. 

Lily  of  Secrets  (Shoshan  Sodoth),  97 
Lingua  Augustina,  235  %. 

Lit.  of  Europe,  280%.,  314%.,  316%. 
Literary  Remains  (Dr.  Deutsch’s), 
126  %. 

Loci  Commun.  M.  Lutheri,  326,  328, 
331 

Loci  Communes  Theol.,  345  %.,  358 
Loci  Theologici,  358,  361,362,  366%., 
368 

Lockler,  206  %,,  229  %. 

Logique  de  Port  Royal,  243 

Malleus  Maleficarum,  40  %, 
Manipulus  Florum,  291  %. 

Maran  Atha,  407 

Marc.  Aurel.,  180%.,  212  %. 

Mare  Magnum  (Wessel’s),  312  %. 
Marini  Procli  Vita,  254%. 

Martyrs  of  Science,  359  %. 

Massoreth  Ha  Massoreth,  the,  106 
Mataeologia  Papistica,  364 
Mazarin  Bible,  the,  the  first  printed 
book,  314 

Mediaeval  Christianity,  254  %., 

293  %. 

Mediaeval  Preachers,  297  %. 
Mediaeval  Philosophy,  260  and  %. , 
290  n. 

Mediaev.  Thought,  252  %.,  296  %., 
466 

Megilla,  31  %. ,  34  %, ,  50  %.,  52  %., 
54  %.,  57  %• 

Megillath  Taanith,  66  %. 
Melanchthon  im  Dienste  an  heiliger 
Schrift,  341  %. 

Melanges  (Munk’s),  265%.,  449,  462, 
463 

Memoriae  Theologorum,  363  %. 
Menachoth,  49  %.,  51  %.,  57  %. 
Menagiana,  291  %. 

Mental  and  Moral  Science,  264  %. 
Messias  Judaeorum,  106 
Metaphysics,  265,  266  %. 

Metalog.,  251  %.,  266  %.,  290  %.> 

294  %.,  296  %. 

Methodus  Proplietica  Praef.,  386 


Index. 


519 


Books  continued — 

Middle  Ages,  40  n.,  247  n.,  470 
Midrash,  the,  19  n.,  210  n. 

Midrashim,  23,  37 
Mil.  Christ.,  321 

Mishna,  the,  5‘Sn.,  62  n.,  63  and  n. , 
65 

Miscellanies  (.Bishop  Wordsworth  s), 
39  n.,  40  n.,  196  n. 

Miscell.  Hist.  Philos.,  283  n. 

Mod.  Review,  52  n.,  412 
Monnmenta  Fidei  Eccles.  Orient., 
361  n.,  393 

Moralia,  240  n.,  247  n. 

Moreh  Nebuchim,  463 
Moreh  Nerochim,  105 
Moriae  and  Instit.  Prineipis  Chris- 
tiani,  321 

Mythical  Interp.,  208  n. 

Nathan  der  Weise,  399 
Nazir,  21  n. 

Nedarim,  52  n. 

New  Test.  Times,  88,  103 
Neut.  Zeitg.  die  Zeit  d.  Apostel, 
52  n.,  114  n. 

Notes  to  the  New  Testament,  393 
Nova  Bibl.  Ecclesiastica,  404 
Novel.  Diatax.,  125  n. 

Novum  Organum,  41  n. 

Nov.  Patr.  Bibl.,  202  n. 

Novum  Testamentum,  377 
Nov.  Test.  extr.  can.,  166 

Obedience  of  a  Christian  Man, 
300  n. 

Obs.  Sacr.,  65  n. 

Occam  und  Luther,  281  n. 

Occasional  Notices,  82 
Odyssey,  130  n. 

Old  Paths,  59  n. 

Old  Mortality,  352 
Old  Testament  Theology,  350  n.,  386 
Old  Test.,  the,  in  the  Jewish  Church, 
370 

Operationes  in  Psalmos,  325 
Opp.  Joann.  Damasc. ,  466 
Opp.  (Cousin),  257  n. 

Opus  Majus,  286  n. 

Opus  Minus,  263  n. 

Opusc.  Theol.,  219  n. 

Orat.  (Gregory  of  Nazianzus),  291  n.t 

293  n. 

Or.  ad.  Graecos,  135  n. 

Origenes,  183  n.,  196  n. 

Orig.  Eccl. ,  346  n. 

Origeniana,  188  n.,  189  n. ,  200  n. 
208  n. 

Orlando  Furioso,  313  n. 


Books  continued — 

Orthodoxus  Calvinus,  346  n. 

Ouvr.  ined.  d’ Abelard,  249  n.,  46/ 
Oxford  Reformers,  353  n.,  318  n. 
Ozair,  53  and  n. 

Paedag.,  166,  185  n. 

Palestine,  18  n.,  32  n.,  78 
Pape,  Hu,  308  n. 

Parables,  on  the,  193  n. 

Parallels,  353  n. 

Paradise  Lost,  293  n. 

Paradiso,  the,  221  n.,  292  n. ,  298  n. , 
309,  313  n. 

Paraphrases,  Erasmus’s,  316  n.,  320 
and  n. 

Patres  Apostolici,  165 

Patrologie,  26  n.,  206,  216  n.,  233  n. 

Pensees,  432,  433 

Pentateuch,  402 

Pesachim,  74  n.,  446 

Pesikhta  Rabbathi,  65  n. 

Phaleg.,  130  n. 

Philo  (Siegfried’s),  22  n.,  37  n.,  38  n., 
120  n.,  138  n.,  149,  456 
Philo  und  die  Halacha,  137  n. 
Philokal. ,  189-191  ns.,  194 n.,  19/  n., 
220 

Philolog.  Sacr.,  104,  376 
Philosophic  de  Origen,  La,  115  n. 
Philosophia  S.  Scripturae,  386 
Philosophic  Hegelienne,  413 
Philos.  Scholastique,  245  n. 

Philos,  de  St.  Aug.,  235  n. 

Phil.  d.  Griechen,  143  n. 

Philosophy  of  History,  413 
Philo.  (Gfrorer),  128  n.,  140  n. 
Postills,  374 
Polyanthea,  291  n. 

Polycrat. ,  43  n. ,  257  n. ,  259  n .,  264 
n.,  273  n.,  292  n.,  294  n. 

Popery,  Dissuasive  from,  17  n. 
Prayer-Book  (Jewish),  19  n. 

Praef.  in  Annott.  (Calvin),  321 
Praef.  in  Inst.  (Calvin),  343  n. 

Praef.  in  Job  (Gregory),  119  n., 
295  n. 

Praef.  in  Rom.  (Calvin),  343-345  ns.. 
347 

Praef.  in  Paralip.  (Jerome),  117  n. 
Praef.  in  Pent.  (Jerome),  117  n. 
Praef.  Ruditn.  Hebr.  315  n. 
Praktische  Einleitung,  92,  114  n., 
445,  451,  461 

Praeleetiones  Hermeneuticae,  376 
Praenott.  Elucid.,  265  n. 

Praep.  Evang.,  116  n.,  128-130  ns., 
137  n.,  138  n.,  142  n.,  143  n. 
Praep.  in  N.  Test.,  470 


520 


Index. 


Books  continued — 

Prelatical  Episcopacy,  164  n. 
Prolegom.  in  Lombardi  Sent.,  467 
Propheten  d.  Alten  Bundes,  103 
Prot.  Tlieol.,  323 
Prophecy  and  Plistory,  64  n.,  86 
Propositiones  de  Sensu  Literali, 
278  n.,  279  and  n. 

Prot.  Lehrbegriff,  364  n. 

Prooenr.  in  Breviloquium,  273  n. 
Prooem.  in  Cant.  (Gregory  of  Nyssa), 
195  n.,  202  n. 

Prooem.  in  Eph.  (Jerome),  227  n., 
234  n. 

Prooem.  in  Gal.  (Jerome),  234  n. 
Prol.  in  Joann.  (Rupert),  255  n. 
Prooem.  in  Matt.  (Jerome),  227  n., 
250 

Prooem.  de  Yit.  St.  Thomas  Aquin., 
272  n. 

Psychomachiam,  168  n. 

Pugio  Eidei,  92 
Purgatoria,  23  n. 

Qiddushin,  21  n.,  51  n.,  66  n. 
Quaestiones,  130  n.,  138  n.,  140  n. 
Quaest.  ad  Autolye.,  Ill  n 
Quaest.  in  Gen.  (Augustine),  125  n., 
146 

Quaest.  Hieron.  (Clericus),  224  n., 
234  n. 

Quaest.  in  Jud.  (Augustine),  168  n. 
Quaest.  (Photius),  250  n. 

Quodiibeta,  281  n. 

Quis  rer.  div.  haer.,  129  n.,  142  n. 
Quod  det.  pot.,  152,  455 
Quod  Deus  Immutabilis,  22  n.,  141 
n  ,  149,  187  n.,  455 
Quod  omn.  prob.  liber.,  129  n., 
138  n. 

Raison  Philosophique,  La,  269  n. 
Rashi’s  Einfluss  iiber  Nic.  v.  Lyra 
und  Luther,  225  n.,  291  n. 
Rationale  div.  ofheiorum,  295  n. 
Rationalism,  39  n.,  40  n. 

Ratio  Disciplinae,  390 
Ratio  Yerae  Theologiae,  321 
Real  wort.,  - 101 
Recherch.es  Critiques,  264  n. 
Recognitions,  208  n. 

Reden  fiber  die  Religion,  410 
Reformation  in  England,  164  n. 
Reformatoren  vor  der  Reformation, 
258  n.,  280  n.,  312  n. 

Rel.  Sacrae,  38  n.,  175  n.,  177  n., 
183  n.,  202  n.,  207-209  ns. 
Religionsphil. ,  116  n.,  412 
Rel.  Auferklarung,  252  n. 


Books  continued — 

Replicae  defensivae,  278  n. 

Retractt. ,  26  n. 

Rer.  Gallic.  Script.,  247  n. 

Right  Use  of  the  Eathers,  on  the, 
163 

Ring  and  the  book,  305 
Rudimenta  Linguae  Hebraicse,  315 

Sacred  Philosophie  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  300  n. 

Sacred  Typology,  353  n. 

St.  John  ( Westcott’s),  189  n. 

St.  John  of  Damascus,  374,  466 
St.  Paul  and  Philo,  Ep.  to  the 
Thessalonians,  154 
St.  Thomas  Aquin.,  Life  of,  258  n., 
260  n.,  270  n. 

Samson’s  Hair,  an  Eminent  Repre¬ 
sentation  of  the  Church  of  God, 
299 

Sanhedrin,  76,  85,  87,  97-99,  441, 
442,  445,  447,  448 
Sanhedrin,  Tosefta,  18  n. 

Sayings  of  the  Jewish  Eathers, 
57  n. 

Schaff.  Herzog.,  390 

Scholastica  Theologia,  287  n.}  292  n. 

Scholasticism,  264  n. 

Scholia,  187  and  n. 

Schol.  de  Mittelalt.,  255  n. 

Schol.  in  Lib.  Hier.  adv.  Helvid., 
229  n.,  265  n. 

Schools  of  Charles  the  Great,  the, 
247  n. 

Script.  Eccl.,  254  n.,  313  n. 

Script.  Nov.  Coll.,  208  n. 

Script.  Rer.  Ital.,  40  n. 

Scripture  Y indicated,  353  n.,  460 
Seb.  Franck,  341  n. 

Sentences,  the,  262  and  n.,  263,  265 
n.,  289  n.,  293  n.,  358,  467 
Sepher  Ikkarim,  464 
Sermon  on  Ministerial  Duties,  353  n. 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  125  n.,  234  n., 
239  n. 

Shabbath,  62  n.,  68  n.,  76,  85,  86 
Sheb.,  64  n. 

Shelosh  Esreh  Middoth  lia-Thorah, 
19  n. 

Shemoth  Rabba,  52 n.,  86 
Short  Hist,  of  Greek  Mathem.,  247  n. 
Sibyl,  the,  172,  178,  185  and  n.,  191 
Sic  et  Non,  260  n.,  261  n.,  468 
Sifra,  52  n. 

Siphra,  18  n.,  62  n. 

Sittenlelire,  409 
Socinianismus  profligatus,  364 
Song  of  Songs,  211  n.,  226,  263 


Index. 


521 


Books  continued — 

Sopherim,  52,  63  n.,  65  n. 

Sorciere,  La,  40  n. 

Sota,  57  n.,  63  n.,  66  n.,  442,  448 
Souvenirs  (Renan’ s),  271  n.,  470 
Speaker’s  Commentary,  189  n.,  220  n. 
Special  Philosophie,  History  of, 
161  n. 

Spec.  Theol.,  353  n. 

Spekulative  Tlieologie,  409 
Spicil.  Solesrn.,  269  n. 

Spirituales  Formulae,  295  n. 

Strom.  (Clemens  Alexandria),  24  n. , 
109,  116  n.,  117  n.,  128  n.,  129 
n.,  143  n.,  168  n.,  182-186  ns., 
194  n. 

Studiis  Instit.,  De,  163  n. 

Succah,  86 

Sukkah,  54  n.,  66  n.,  68  n.,  104  n., 
115  It 

Summa,  237  n.,  263  n.,  266  n., 
271  n.,  276  and  n.,  282  n.,  288  n., 
292  n.,  358,  361 

Summa  Doctrinae  de  Foedere,  385 
Sura,  53  n. 

Symbolik,  135  n. ,  380 
Symposium,  201  n. 

Synopsis,  343  n.,  389 
Systema  Locorum,  358,  362,  365, 
368  n. 

Systema  Theologiae,  371,  373,  386 
Systeme  de  la  Kabbale,  97 


Taainth,  447 
Table  Talk,  328,  334 
Talmud,  18,  19  n.,  28,  34,  50  n., 
52  n.,  57,  61  and  n.,  63-65  and 
ns.,  68,  315  n.,  316  n. 

Talm.  Worterb.,  18  n. 

Talmudic  Miscellany,  36  n.,  50  n. 
Tamid,  86 

Temoorah,  87,  168  n. 

Test.  adv.  Jud.,  123  n. 

Theses  de  Labadismo,  364 
Theodicaea,  398 

Theod.  Mops.,  V.  T.,  216  n.,  219  n. 
Theol.  Christ.,  168  n.,  346  n.,  379 
Theol ogia  Hidactico-Polemica,  358, 
370,  373 

Theologia  Naturalis,  340  n.,  402 
Thes.  Nov.  Anecd.,  261  n.,  313  n. 
Theologil.  (Luther’s),  326,  329,  331, 


335,  336 

Theol.  of  Old  Test.,  234  n. 

Theol.  Journ.  Hengst.,  402 
Theolog.  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  281  n. 
Theorie  du  Judaism e,  19  n.,  63  n. 
Timaeus,  the,  142,  282  n. 
Tischreden,  321,  324,  325,  335,  336 


Books  continued — 

Tractatus  Theologico-Politicus,  398 
Tract,  de  Erroribus,  260  n. 

Tract,  de  Obit.  Valent.,  205  n. 

Tract  57  (Dr.  Pusey's),  89,  163  n., 
168  n. 

Tracts  for  the  Times,  32  n.,  180  n.  ; 
No.  85,  181  n.,  191  n.  ;  No.  87, 

181  n. 

Traite  de  l’Emploi  des  Saints  Peres, 
163  n. 

Traite  de  la  Morale  des  Peres,  163  n. 
Treasures  of  the  Talmud,  102 
Trialog.,  279  n.,  313  n. 

Trinitas,  171  n. 

True  Religion,  of,  164  n. 

Twelve  Apostles,  Teaching  of  the, 
166 

Typus  Doctrinae  Propheticae,  386 

Uhrschuift,  120  n.  . 

University  of  Cambridge,  248  n. 

Var.  Hist.,  120  n. 

Vayyikra  Rabba,  31  n.,  63  n.,  86  n. 
Verm.  Schriften,  372,  390,  405 
Versohnungslehre,  289  n. 

Versuch.  einer  Charakteristik  Mel- 
anclithon’s,  341  n. 

Vernunftige  Gedanken  vonGott,  der 
Welt,  und  der  Seele,  398  n. 

Via  ad  Pacem,  383 

Via  Intelligentiae,  242  n.,  292  n . 

Vie  de  Hilled,  19  n. 

Vie  de  Jesus,  66  n.,  419 
Vigilantius,  229  n. ,  232  n. 

Vindiciae,  374 
Virr.  111.,  226  n. 

Vision  (Hennas),  171  n. 

Vita  Calvini,  351  n. 

Vit.  Luth.,  265  n. 

Vit.  Melanclith.,  310,  364  n. 

Vit.  Mos.,  23  n.,  54  n.,  116  n., 
117  n.,  120  n.,  128  n.,  130  n., 
141  n. 

Vita  di  S.  Thomas,  270  n.,  289  n. 
Vernunftige  Gedanken  von  der  Men- 
schen  Thun  und  Lassen,  398  n. 
Volk.  Gottes,  114  n. 

Vom  Erloser  d.  Menschen,  406^ 

Von  Geiste  d.  Hebr.  Poesie,  407 
Von  Gott  eingegeben  (Luther),  149 
Von  Gottes  Sohn,  406 
Vorreden  zu  den  Bibl.  Buchern, 
339  it • 

Vorstudien,  116 n.,  120 n.,  142 n.,  454 
Vulgate,  27  n.,  123-125  and  ns., 
196,  197,  203  n.,  213  n.,  2.29, 
239  n.,  249,  271,  313,  315 


522 


Index. 


Books  continued — 

Wahres  Christenthum,  36B  n. 
Weissag  d.  A.  T.,  154 
Westminster  Confession,  349  n. ,  359 
Words  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  340  n. 
Worterbuch  des  N.  T.,  405 
Writings  of  Tertnllian,  1/8  n.,  185  n. 

Yadaim,  88,  336 
Yad  Hachazaka,  52  n. 

Yoma,  51  n.,  57  n.,  58  n.}  62  n. 

Zeitschr.,  78,  148 
Zeitschr.  fiir  Philos.,  270  n, 
Zinzendorf,  Le  Comte  de,  390 
Zohar,  97 
Zougoth,  65  n. 

Zur  Schonen  Literatnr  und  Knnst, 
406 

Borgia,  311 

Brentius,  his  estimate  of  the  Book  of 
Ecclesiastes,  32 

Brethren  of  the  Common  Life,  the,  312 
Browning’s  Ring  cind  the  Book ,  extract 
from,  305 
Brussels,  314 

Bucer  on  Thomas  Aquinas,  289  n, 
Budaeus,  66  n. 

C. 

Cade,  Jack,  and  Gregory  the  Great,  on 
the  teaching  of  grammar,  246  and  n. 
Cajetan,  Cardinal,  Luther’s  conference 
with,  325  n. 

Caligula,  137  n. 

Calixtus,  Georg,  his  influence  as  an 
advocate  for  tolerance  and  concord, 
382  ;  and  on  the  exegesis  of  the 
17th  century,  382  and  n. 

Calov,  Abraham,  character  of,  364  ;  his 
hatred  for  Grotius,  365  n.  ;  his 
worship  of  the  Word  of  God,  375  n. 
Calvin,  the  greatest  exegete  and  theo¬ 
logian  of  the  Reformation,  343  ;  es¬ 
timate  of  his  work  and  of  its  influence, 
343-345  ;  his  Commentaries  still  a 
living  force,  342  ;  authorities  on  him 
and  on  his  works,  343  n.  ;  character¬ 
istic  features  of  his  exegesis  an  abhor¬ 
rence  of  hollow  orthodoxy,  345  ;  he 
anticipated  modern  criticisms  in  his 
views  about  the  Messianic  prophecies, 
346  ;  his  opinion  as  to  tne  business 
of  an  interpreter,  347;  examples  of  his 
comments,  347,  348  ;  lie  upholds  the 
supreme  and  final  authority  of  Scrip¬ 
ture,  349  ;  moral  aspect  of  his  exe¬ 


gesis,  350,  351  ;  his  spirit  of  in¬ 
tolerance,  351  ;  reflections  on  the 
work  of,  351-353  ;  his  notes  on 
Messianic  passages,  472 

Calvinism,  the  post-Relormation  con¬ 
troversy  regarding,  366 

Camerarius  on  the  theology  of  the 
12th  century,  310  n. 

Canon,  the  Hebrew,  places  the  his¬ 
torical  books  among  the  Prophets, 

9  n.  ;  Jerome’s  views  on  the,  225  ; 
Luther’s,  335,  336  ;  criticism  of  the, 
as  old  as  the  Rabbis,  336  n. 

Cappadocian  triumvirate,  the, — Basil 
the  Great,  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  and 
Gregory  of  Nazianzus, — notice  of, 
219 

Cappellus,  Ludovicus,  his  influence  as  a 
critic  on  the  theology  and  exegesis  of 
the  17th  century,  386  ;  the  publica¬ 
tion  of  his  Critica  Sacra  marks  an 
epoch,  387 

Caracalla,  81  n. 

Carls tadt,  one  of  the  helpers  of  the 
Reformation,  341  ;  his  book  on  the 
canon  of  Scripture,  341  n. 

Carpenter,  Prof.  J.  E.,  52  n. 

Casaubon,  Isaac,  his  remark  about  the 
disputes  of  the  Sorbonne,  291  n.  ; 
his  rebuke  of  Baronius,  297  n. 

Case-sign  in  Hebrew,  Rabbinical  dis¬ 
pute  regarding  the,  74  and  n. 

Cassiodorus,  24  n.,  26  and  n. 

Catenae  or  excerpts,  nature  and  number 
of,  248  and  n.,  250  n.  ;  difference 
between  glosses  and,  250  n.,  251 

Celsus,  17 

Chakamim,  or  Wise.  52 

Charles  I.,  apotheosis  of,  in  the  Church 
of  England  after  the  Restoration, 
40  n. 

Charles  V.,  324 

Chasidim,  the  original  name  of  the 
Pharisees,  11  andw.  ;  meaning  of  the 
term,  11  n. 

Chatack,  mystic  associations  of  the 
Hebrew  word,  102  and  n. 

Chilling  worth  on  the  interpretation  of 
the  Scriptures,  8  n. 

Christ,  the  work  of,  nameless  horror 
which  it  sometimes  involved,  41 
and  n.  ;  difference  between  the  work 
of  Hillel  and  that  of,  66,  67  ;  the 
ransom  of,  supposed  by  Irenaeus  to 
be  paid  to  Satan,  176  ;  mistake  made 
by  Irenaeus  as  to  the  age  of,  176 
and  n ,  ;  danger  arising  from  Luther’s 
rule  of  finding  Christ  everywhere  in 
Scripture,  333  ;  observations  of  F,  W. 


Index. 


Robertson  on  this  rule,  334  n.  ;  post- 
Reformation  dispute  regarding  the 
double  nature  of,  367-369  ;  Lessing 
on  observing  the  commandments  of, 
397  %.  ;  reverence  of  Kant  for,  408  %. 
Christian  Kabbalistsand  their  methods, 

36  %. 

Christianity  and  orthodoxy,  Chalybaus 
on,  161  %. 

Christians,  true  and  false,  25 
Chronicles,  the  Books  of,  nature  of, 

52  %. 

Church  and  the  Gospel,  the,  Luther  s 
decision  as  to,  326 

Church,  Dean,  on  the  character  of  the 
Fathers,  241 

Church,  Tichonius’s  first  rule  as  to  the, 
25 

Churches,  types  of,  25 
Chrysostom,  the  Homilist,  of  the  School 
of  Antioch,  220  ;  his  character,  in¬ 
fluence,  and  writings,  220,  221  ; 

Dante  assigns  him  a  place  in  Para¬ 
dise,  221  ;  Cardinal  Newman’s  opinion 
of,  221  %.  ;  his  opinion  of  Scripture 
and  of  the  importance  of  studying 
it,  222  ;  Luther’s  opinion  of,  222  %.  ; 
saying  of,  regarding  the  Fathers,  242 

Cibber,  Colley,  278  %. 

Cicero,  quotation  from  his  Dc  Juvent. , 
64  %.  ;  on  the  fables  of  the  ancient 
poets,  135 

Claudius,  98  %.,  401 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  estimate  of,  and 
of  his  writings,  184-187  ;  character¬ 
istic  features  of  his  system,  185-187  ; 
his  doctrine  of  accommodation,  187 

and  %.  .  ,  , 

Clement  of  Rome,  estimate  ot,  and  ol 
his  work,  and  of  his  influence  on  early 
exegesis,  166,  167,  and  ns.  ;  on  the 
quotations  from  the  Scriptures  m, 
166  ns. 

Clement  V.,  Pope,  316  n. 

Clement  VII.,  Pope,  309^ 

Clement  VIII.,  Pope,  316%. 

Clerc,  Le,  his  theory  of  accommodation, 

379  %•  .  - 

Cocceius  and  Cocceianism,  influence  ot, 
on  the  theology  and  exegesis  ot  the 
17th  oentury,  385,  386 
Coleridge,  his  comparison  of  the  leading 
Reformers  with  the  bathers,  163  n., 
influence  ot  bis  works  in  originating 
anewschool  of  thought,  422  ;  authoii- 
ties  and  works  on,  422  %. 

Colet,  Dean,  on  God  and  the  soul, 
255  n.  ;  on  the  sense  of  Scripture, 

300  %. 


Colon,  24%. 

Collier,  Jeremy,  17  %. 

Columbus,  427 

Commentators  of  the  Reformation 
period,  842  %.  ;  mediaeval  Jewish  461 
Commentators  of  the  Reformed  and 
Lutheran  Church,  characteristics  of, 
372  %. 

Confessions,  list  of  the  leading,  of  the 
post-Reformation  period,  359  ;  Mil- 
ton’s  protest  against,  359  %.  ;  in¬ 
fluence  of,  on  the  age,  360 
Controversies,  mediaeval,  account  of 
the  chief,  253  ;  and  of  those  of  the 
post-Reformation  period,  362,  366 
et  scq.  ;  Renan  on  controversies 
regarding  errors,  363 
Constantine,  on  the  Donation  of,  to 
the  Church,  298,  312,  313  and  %. 
Council  of  Trent,  307 
Council  of  Constance,  310 
“  Counsels  of  perfection,  meaning  of 
the  phrase,  11 

Cousin  on  the  periods  of  scholasticism, 
253  %. 

Covenant,  Ezra’s  conception  ot  a,  Do 
and  %. 

Creeds,  the  age  of,  359 
Creeping  things,  the  Talmud  on  the 
cleanness  of,  64 

Crilica  Sacra,  Cappellus’s,  controversy 
raised  by  the  publication  of,  387  %.  , 
extract  from,  387  %. 

Crowns,  the  three,  ot  the  Talmud,  61 
Crowns  on  Hebrew  letters,  explanation 
of  their  use,  74  and  %.  ;  Rabbinical 
legend  regarding  Moses  and  the,  /  5 
and  %. 

Crusaders,  the,  justify  their  deeds  by 
Scripture,  39 

Cryptographs,  Talmudic,  450 
Culverweli  on  new  opinions,  395 
Cyril  of  Alexandria,  his  comment  on 
Cant.  iii.  9-11,  211  n. 

Cyprian,  estimate  ot,  and  of  his 
writings,  180-182 

D. 

Dante,  his  reference  to  the  name  of 
Rachel,  23  %.  ;  chairs  founded  to 
comment  on  his  Divina  Commedia , 
47  ;  his  opinion  concerning  the 
mystical  sense,  159  ;  assigns  to 
Chrysostom  a  place  in  Paradise,  221  ; 
his  estimate  of  Dionysius  the  Areo- 
pagite,  255  %. ;  alludes  to  the  1  ro- 
lo<me  to  the  Sentences  of  Peter 
Lombard,  262  ;  and  to  Albertus  and 


524 


Index. 


Thomas  of  Aquino,  267  n.  ;  on  the 
power  of  the  Papacy,  298  n.  ;  on 
the  donation  of  Constantine  to  the 
Church,  312,  313  n. 

Darwin  and  his  discoveries,  result  of, 
426 

Darwinian  principle,  reference  to  the,  9 
David,  the  Scribes  absolve  him  from 
all  sin,  63  and  n. 

Davies,  Rev.  J.  LI.,  on  St.  Ambrose, 
206  n. 

Deception,  Jerome’s  belief  in  the  per¬ 
missibility  of,  231  n. 

Delitzsch  on  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes, 

32 

Densk,  one  of  the  helpers  of  the  Re¬ 
formation,  341  :  his  view  of  what 
constitutes  the  Word  of  God,  341  n. 
Denis  on  Alexandrianism,  133  n. 
Derenbourg,  4  n. 

Descartes,  on  vain  speculation,  284,  358 
n.,  383 

Deutsch,  Dr.,  on  the  Halakha  and  the 
Haggada,  89  ;  and  on  the  Law,  89 
De  Wette,  his  view  of  the  Book  of 
Ecclesiastes,  32 
Deyling,  65  n. 

Dialectic  method,  abuse  of  the,  by  the 
Schoolmen,  288-291 
Diderot,  his  remark  on  scepticism  being 
the  first  step  to  truth,  266  n. 

Diet  of  Numb  erg,  the,  311  n. 

Digby,  Everard,  39 

Diocletian  endeavours  to  suppress  the 
New  Testament,  16 

Diodorus  of  Tarsus,  founder  of  the 
School  of  Antioch,  212  ;  nature  of 
his  works,  213 

Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  estimate  of, 
and  of  his  criticism  on  the  Revela¬ 
tion,  206,  207  and  n. 

Dionysius  the  Areopagite,  on  the  influ¬ 
ence  of  the  writings  of,  254  and  ns. 
Disraeli,  Isaac,  on  Judaism,  69 
Divina  Comrnedia,  chairs  founded  to 
comment  on  the,  47 
Divine  progress  observable  everywhere, 
157 

Divine  Spirit,  the,  wTorks  on  the  world 
through  gifted  men,  353 
Divorce,  views  of  Hillel  and  Aqiba  on, 
77 

Dogmatism,  on  theology,  the  age  of, 
362  ;  and  the  Bible,  365  n. 

Domitian,  176,  310 
Donation  of  Constantine  to  the  Church, 
on  the,  312,  313  n. 

Donne,  on  the  language  of  the  K abba- 
lists,  294  n. 


Dorner  on  the  opponents  of  Pietism, 
382  n.  ;  his  Christology  ranks  with 
the  greatest  works  of  Christian 
orthodoxy,  419 
Dorotheus,  the  presbyter,  209 
Dorpius,  Erasmus’s  reply  to,  on  eccle¬ 
siastical  authority,  320  n. 

Double  nature  of  Christ,  dispute  re¬ 
garding  the,  367-369 
Du  Cange,  6  n. 

Duns  Scotus,  his  negative  style  of 
exegesis,  280  ;  character  of,  301 
Du  Pin’s  remark  on  Paulinus  applicable 
to  Jerome,  233  n. 

Durandus,  on  the  threefold  sense  of 
Scripture,  6  n.,  295  n. 

Durham,  33  n. 

Dutch  theologians  and  universities  of 
the  17th  century,  379  and  n.  ;  their 
influence  in  reviving  a  better  system 
of  exegesis,  379 

E. 

Ecclesiastes,  early  doubts  regarding 
the  authenticity  of  the  Book  of,  31  ; 
judgment  of  the  Rabbis  on,  31  ;  of  St. 
Jerome  and  Augustine,  31  ;  of  the 
Schoolmen,  32  ;  of  Olympiodorus 
and  Hugo  of  St.  Victor,  32  ;  of 
Brentius  and  Luther,  32  ;  of  Mel- 
anchthon,  32  ;  of  De  Wette,  Heine, 
and  Delitzsch,  32 
Edersheim,  64  n. 

“Egg,  the,”  notice  of  the  treatise  of 
the  Mishna  so-called,  88 
iyKpvcpias,  reference  to  the  Septuagint 
word,  23 

Ego  and  the  Non-Ego,  Fichte’s  system 
of  the,  409 

Eichhorn,  critical  labours  of,  402 
Eliezer,  Rabbi,  his  remark  regarding 
Shammai,  68 ;  and  Aqiba,  71  ;  is  a 
pure  traditionalist,  73  n. 

Elizabeth,  Queen,  39  n. 

English  Church,  freedom  of,  from  the 
controversies  of  the  post-Reformation 
period,  376  ;  its  labours  in  the  field 
of  Scriptural  studies,  420  et  seq.  ; 
leaders  of  the  theology  of  the,  420 ; 
effects  of  German  theology  on  the, 
422  ;  influence  of  Coleridge  in  creat¬ 
ing  a  new  school  of  teachers  in,  423- 
425 

Erasmus,  on  the  barbarous  language  of 
the  Schoolmen,  290  ;  and  on  their 
useless  questions,  293  and  n.  ;  next 
to  Luther,  he  rendered  the  greatest 
service  to  the  Reformation,  316  y  his 


Index. 


525 


editio  princeps  of  the  New  Testament 
formed  an  epoch  in  the  history  of 
Western  Christendom,  316  ;  he  pro¬ 
claimed  it  to  be  the  right  of  all  to 
read  the  messages  of  the  Gospel  for 
themselves,  317  ;  his  scholarship  and 
exegetic  labours,  317-320  ;  Pope’s 
lines  on,  318  n.  ;  antagonism  between 
Luther  and,  319  ;  incurs  the  enmity  of 
the  Church,  319  ;  is  the  chief  founder 
of  modern  textual  and  Biblical  criti¬ 
cism,  320  ;  his  reply  to  Dorpius  on 
ecclesiastical  authority,  320  n.  ;  his 
philological  knowledge,  321  n.  ;  esti¬ 
mate  of  the  work  which  he  did,  320- 
322 

Eplrraem  Syrus,  see  Syrus  Ephraem 
Erachim,  64  n. 

Erigena,  Johannes  Scotus,  his  com¬ 
parison  of  the  meanings  of  Scripture, 

7  ;  his  work  and  influence  on  medi¬ 
aeval  controversy  and  exegesis,  253, 
254;  his  great  work,  DeDiv.  Nat., 
is  condemned  by  the  Council  of 
Valence,  and  by  two  Popes,  254  n. 
Ernesti,  4  n.  ;  critical  labours  of,  402 
’Erubin,  62  ns.,  63  n. ,  65  n.,  68  n. 
Esther,  early  doubts  regarding  the 
Book  of,  32  and  n. 

Etheridge,  47  n.,  53  n.,  61  n. 
Etymology  of  the  Schoolmen,  speci¬ 
mens  of  the,  286  n. 

Eucharist,  controversy  between  Ratram 
and  Paschasius  on,  and  between 
Lanfranc  and  Berengarius  on,  253 
Eucherius,  Bishop  of  Treves,  lengths 
to  which  he  carried  allegory  in  exe¬ 
gesis,  24  ;  nature  of  his  wTork  called 
Liber  Formularum  Lpiritalis  Intelli- 
gentiae,  24 
Euclid,  289 
Eugenius,  Pope,  262 
Euler,  his  Defence  of  Revelation  against 
the  Attacks  of  Freethinkers,  402 
Evil  impulse,  the  Jews  desire  to  anni¬ 
hilate  the,  58 

Excerpts  or  Catenae,  nature  and  num¬ 
ber  of,  248  and  n.,  250  and  n. 

Exegesis,  Success  and  Failure  of, 
1 — 43  ;  Exegesis,  a  matter  of  necessity 
for  books  immortalised  by  the  rever¬ 
ence  of  generations,  3  ;  importance 
of,  in  reference  to  the  Bible,  4  ;  cen¬ 
turies  of  mistaken,  8,  9  ;  result  ot, 
when  tested  by  the  Darwinian  prin¬ 
ciple,  9  ;  and  by  the  Hegelian,  9  ; 
gradual  development  of  a  proper 
theory  of,  9  ;  the  Talmud  and  the 


Exegesis  continued — 

comments  of  the  Schoolmen  of  no 
authority  in,  10  ;  two  reasons  why 
exegesis  tends  to  become  non-natural, 

11  ;  the  Rabbinic  and  Alexandrian, 
originated  in  a  union  of  these  two 
causes,  11  ;  the  Christian  expositors 
inherited  this  fatal  legacy,  11 ;  seven 
main  periods  and  systems  of,  12  ; 
nature  and  origin  ot  the  methods 
adopted  during  these  periods,  13  ; 
power  and  grandeur  of  the  Bible  still 
maintained,  notwithstanding  adverse 
and  mistaken  methods  of,  13  ;  object 
of  this  survey  of  the  history  of,  14  ; 
review  of  the  various  kinds  and  errors 
of,  15  ;  influence  of  the  various  ages 
of,  on  the  Scriptures,  15,  16  ;  effects 
of  false  methods  of,  17,  18  ;  prin¬ 
ciples  of  the  Rabbinic  age  of,  18-22  ; 
influence  of  Alexandrianism  on,  22  ; 
list  of  chief  hermeneutic  manuals 
in  use  during  the  Patristic  epoch  oi, 
23  n. ;  principles  of  the  Patristic  epoch 
of,  23-26  ;  influence  of  Augustine  on 
various  modes  of,  24  ;  of  Eucherius, 
Bishop  of  Treves,  24  ;  of  the  seven 
rules  of  Tichonius,  24-26  ;  erroneous 
principles  of  other  epochs  of,  26  ; 
Locke  on  the  abuse  of  words  in  cer¬ 
tain  kinds  of,  27  ;  pernicious  influence 
of  unfounded  principles  of,  27  et  scq.  ; 
remarks  of  a  Scotch  divine  on,  29  n.  ; 
misapplication  of  the  principles  of, 
to  First  Epistle  of  St.  John,  31  ;  to 
Ecclesiastes,  31  ;  to  the  Song  of 
Solomon,  32,  33  ;  incompetency  of 
early,  to  render  correctly  the  first 
verse  of  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis, 
34-38  ;  this  the  cause  of  positive 
heresy,  37  ;  importance  to  mankind 
of  mistaken,  38  et  seq. 

Rabbinic  System  of  Exegesis,  47 
— 107  ;  how  it  arose,  51  ;  Ezra  the 
originator  of  it,  52  ;  nature  of  his 
work,  and  its  immense  influence 
on  the  Jewish  nation,  51  et  seq.  ; 
names  and  duration  of  the  various 
Rabbinic  schools  of  exeges’s,  52, 
53  and  n.  ;  the  direct  and  in¬ 
direct  consequences  of  Ezra’s  sys¬ 
tem  fatal  to  the  Jews,  56  ;  it  was 
built  on  superstition  and  exclusive¬ 
ness,  60  ;  and  set  aside  the  meaning 
of  Holy  Writ,  63  ;  account  of  the 
leading  builders  of  this  system,  65- 
81  ;  the  sweet  and  noble  Hillel,  65- 
67  ;  Shainmai,  the  rival  of  Hillel,  67, 


526 


Index . 


Exegesis  continued — 

68;  Johanan  Ben  Zakkai, .  68-/0  ; 
Rabbi  Aqiba,  71-78  ;  Rabbi  Juda, 

79  81  ;  Aqiba’s  extravagances  of  fan¬ 
tastic  exegesis,  71  ;  origin  of  what 
was  known  in  the  post-Reformation 
epoch  as  the  emphatic  style  of, 

73  n.  ;  summary  of  the  result  of 
centuries  of  Rabbinic,  83  et  scq.  ; 
the  Halakha,  the  Haggada,  and  the 
Qabbala,  the  main  sources  of  Rab¬ 
binic,  84  ;  the  principal  contributions 
of  Rabbinic  exegesis  of  the  Old  Tes¬ 
tament  are  in  the  Targums,  the 
Talmud,  and  in  the  Midrashim,  84  ; 
Jewish  exegesis  as  applied  in  the 
Midrashim  founded  on  four  methods, 
95  ;  account  of  the  part  played  in 
Rabbinic,  by  Gematria,  97  -  100  ; 
Notarikon,  1 00  ;  and  Temoorah,  102 ; 
a  mode  of,  which  consisted  in  alter¬ 
ing  the  words  of  the  text  into  others 
resembling  them,  104  ;  summary  of 
the  results  of  Rabbinic,  for  nearly 
2,000  years,  105;  method  of  Rab¬ 
binic,  111 

Alexandrian  School  oe,  111—158; 
its  influence  on  the  Biblical  studies  of 
the  Christian  Church,  111  ;  history 
of  Alexandrian,  111-158  ;  the  method 
of  allegorical,  126  etseq.  ;  influence  of 
the  writings  of  Aristeas  and  Aristo- 
bulus  on  this  method,  128  et  seq.  ; 
how  this  method  arose,  131  ;  the 
Alexandrian  Jews  find  this  method 
ready  to  their  hand,  134  ;  Philo’s 
works  the  epitome  and  development 
of  the  allegorical  method  of,  137  ; 
effect  of  his  eclecticism,  literalism, 
and  rationalising  on  the  principles 
of,  137-139  ;  his  method  of,  results 
in  a  complete  perversion  of  Scripture, 
139,  140  ;  frivolity  of  Philo’s,  146, 
147  ;  his  system  of,  reduced  to  six 
rules,  149-152  ;  nullity  of  his  system 
of,  153,  154  ;  result  of  his  system  of, 
155  ;  legacy  of  Alexandrian,  156  ;  a 
Divine  progress  observable  through¬ 
out  it,  157 

Patristic  Exegesis,  161 — 242;  gene¬ 
ral  view  of  the  exegesis  of  the  F athers, 
162  et  scq.  ;  opinions  of  Milton, 
Grotius,  Coleridge,  and  others,  re¬ 
garding  the,  162,  163  and  ns.  ;  the 
Septuagint  the  only  Bible  used  by 
the,  165  ;  Clement  of  Rome  and  his 
writings,  166  ;  the  Epistle  of  Bar- 


Exegesis  continued — 

nabas,  167-170;  the  Apologists  - 
Hernias,  Polycarp,  Ignatius,  Tatian, 
Athenagoras,  and  Theophilus  of  An¬ 
tioch,  171  and  ns.  ;  Justin  Martyr 
and  his  system,  170-174  and  ns.  ; 
Irenaeus  and  his  views,  174-177  ;  the 
Fathers  of  the  third  and  later  centu¬ 
ries  divided  into  three  schools,  177  ; 
literal  and  realistic,  represented  by 
Tertullian,  177  ;  the  allegorical,  by 
Origen,  177  ;  the  historical  and 
grammatical,  by  Theodore  of  Mop- 
suestia,  177  ;  estimate  of  Tertullian 
and  Iris  method  of  exegesis,  177-180 
and  ns.  ;  of  Cyprian  and  his  method, 
180-182  and  ns.  ;  the  school  of  Alex¬ 
andria,  182,  183  ;  of  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  the  first  great  teacher  of 
this  school,  183-187  and  ns.  ;  the 
characteristic  features  of  his  system, 
185-187  and  ns.  ;  the  theory  of  ac¬ 
commodation,  187  andw.  ;  of  Origen, 
the  greatest  master  of  the  school, 
187-203  ;  his  greatness,  and  the 
nature  and  Influence  of  his  teaching, 
188  et  seq.  ;  his  false  theory  and  false 
system,  191  ct  seq.  ;  his  errors,  198- 
201  ;  his  special  influence,  201-203  ; 
of  Hilary,  and  his  system  of  exegesis, 
203-205  ;  specimens  of  his  allegoric 
method,  204  and  n. ;  of  St.  Ambrose, 

205  ;  of  Dionysius  of  Alexandria, 

206  ;  of  Julius  Africanus,  207-209  ; 
Bishop  Nepos  refutes  the  Allegorists, 
209  ;  the  martyr  Lucian  revises  the 
Septuagint,  209  ;  the  Presbyter 
Dorotheus,  209  ;  .  Ephraem  Syrus, 
and  his  method  of  exegesis,  209  ; 
Diodorus  of  Tarsus,  the  founder  of 
the  school  of  Tarsus,  212  ;  nature  of 
his  works,  213  ;  Theodore  of  Mop- 
suestia,  the  ablest  representative  ol 
the  school,  213  ;  the  merits  and 
defects  of  his  system  of  exegesis, 
213,  214  ;  his  faults,  214  ;  instances 
of  his  erroneous  renderings  of  Scrip¬ 
ture,  213,  214  and  ns.  ;  original 
nature  of  his  exegesis,  215  ;  his 
opposition  to  Origenising  allegory, 
216  ;  his  independent  mode  of  dealing 
with  Scripture,  216  ;  his  views  on 
inspiration  and  prophecy,  217,  218  ; 
his  influence  on  the  Western  Church 
destroyed  by  the  charge  of  Nestorian- 
ism,  219  ;  he  is  succeeded  by  Theo- 
doret,  who  upholds  his  views,  219  ; 
the  great  Cappadocian  triumvirate 
—Basil  the  Great,  Gregory  of  Nyssa, 


Index. 


Exegesis  continued — 

and  Gregory  of  Nazianzus — followed 
a  via  media  in  exegesis,  220  ;  they 
avoid  the  extravagances  of  allegory, 
220  ;  in  the  last  epoch  of  Patristic 
exegesis,  three  names  tower  above  all 
others,  220  ;  Chrysostom,  220  ; 
estimate  of  his  character  and  writ¬ 
ings,  220-222  ;  Jerome,  the  Origen 
of  the  Western  Church,  222  ;  his 
character  and  writings,  223,  224  ; 
value  of  his  Vulgate  translation,  223  ; 
his  services,  223-225  ;  his  serious 
defects,  225  et  scq.  ;  his  haste, 
225  ;  his  want  of  reflection,  227  ; 
his  prejudices,  227  ;  his  lack  of 
exegetic  decision,  228  ;  his  waver¬ 
ing,  230  ;  his  views  on  inspiration, 
230  ;  his  self-contradiction  on  the 
subject  of  allegory,  231  ;  St.  Augus¬ 
tine’s  system  of  exegesis,  234  ;  his 
versatility,  235  ;  defects  of  his 
system,  236  ;  his  use  and  abuse  of 
allegory,  236-238  ;  success  of  the 
Allegorists,  239  ;  remarks  on  the 
system  of  exegesis  of  the  Fathers, 
240-242 

Scholastic  Exegesis,  245—303  ; 
derivation  of  the  term  scholasticism, 
245  n.  ;  darkness  of  mediaeval  times 
against  our  system  of  enlightened 
exegesis,  245  ;  effects  of  the  Papal 
system  and  the  inroads  of  the  bar¬ 
barians  on,  246  ;  saying  of  Gregory 
of  Tours  regarding  these  times,  246  ; 
excuses  for  this  in  his  beliefs,  246  n.  ; 
homiletics  have  ever  been  to  an  in 
credible  extent  the  Phylloxera  Vasta- 
trix  of,  246  n.  ;  Charlemagne  endea¬ 
vours  to  revive  learning,  247  ;  but  all 
knowledge  becomes  ecclesiastical, 
247  ;  teaching  of  the  Trivium  and  the 
Quadrivium  begins,  247  ;  explanation 
of  these,  247  n.  ;  the  mediaeval 
divines  merely  compilers,  248  ;  list 
of  compilers  and  compilations,  248  n. ; 
the  teaching  of  the  Latin  Church 
rests  on  the  authority  of  three 
Fathers — Ambrose,  Jerome,  and 
Augustine,  248  n.  ;  the  Venerable 
Bede  and  his  work,  247  ;  his  system 
of  exegesis,  249  ;  is  merely  the  sedi¬ 
ment  of  Patristic  exposition,  249  ; 
the  compilations  of  Alcuin  and 
others,  249,  250  ;  uselessness  of  such 
compilations,  250  ;  the  works  of 
11  ay  mo  of  Halbertstadt,  Rabanus 
Maurus,  and  Paschasius  Radbertus 


Exegesis  continued — 

are  all  equally  servile,  250  ;  signifi¬ 
cance  of  Notker  of  St.  Gall’s  remark, 
250  ;  account  of  the  glosses  that  pre¬ 
vailed,  251  ;  remarks  of  various 
authors  on  the  mediaeval  compila¬ 
tions  and  glossaries,  250,  251  andws.  ; 
specimen  of  the  Glossa  ordinaria  of 
Walafrid  Strabo,  251,  252  ;  and  of 
the  comment  of  Hugo  of  St.  Victor  on 
“the  word,”  252;  notwithstanding 
a  certain  freedom  of  thought,  medi¬ 
aeval  exegesis  is  null  and  naught, 
253  ;  scholasticism  divided  into  three 
epochs,  253  n.  ;  it  originated  in  con¬ 
troversies  between  the  Church  and 
independent  thought,  253  ;  influence 
on,  of  Johannes  Scotus  Erigena,  253  ; 
his  work  and  its  result,  253,  254  and 
ns.  ;  St.  Bernard,  “the  last  of  the 
Fathers,”  his  influence  on  ecclesias¬ 
tical  rule  and  mediaeval  mysticism, 
255,  256  ;  influence  of  mysticism  on 
mediaeval  exegesis,  256  y  difference 
between  scholasticism  and  mysticism, 
256  ;  the  Song  of  Solomon  the  chief 
text-book,  256,  257  and  ns.  ;  Hugo 
and  Richard  of  St.  Victor  on  mysti¬ 
cism,  257,  258  ;  mysticism  a  protest 
against  the  speculative  inquiries  of 
Abelard,  258  ;  Abelard,  the  chief 
founder  of  scholasticism  proper,  259  ; 
wrork  and  influence  of,  in  breaking 
down  tradition  and  superstition, 
259  ;  authorities  and  remarks  on  his 
works,  259-261  ;  influence  of  Peter 
Lombard  and  his  Sentences,  261  ; 
they  become  the  text-book  of  scholas¬ 
ticism,  262  ;  the  Sumrna  of  Aquinas 
and  the  Sentences  more  studied  and 
expounded  than  the  Scriptures,  263  ; 
fortunes  of  Aristotle  in  the  mediaeval 
Church,  263  ;  his  works  became 
known  through  the  medium  of 
Spanish  Jews,  and  his  influence 
rapidly  spread,  264,  265  ;  definition 
of  scholastic  theology,  265  ;  in  exe¬ 
gesis  the  Schoolmen  are  at  their 
worst,  266  ;  Albertus  and  his  system 
of  exegesis,  267-269  ;  the  greatness 
of  the  Schoolmen  paralysed  bv 
vicious  methods,  267 ;  Thomas  of 
Aquino,  and  his  method  of  exegesis, 
269-272  ;  influence  of  the  scholasti¬ 
cism  and  mysticism  of  Bonaventura, 
272  ;  his  system  of  explaining  Scrip¬ 
ture  by  Scripture,  273  ;  Nicolas  of 
Lvra,  the  Jerome  of  the  14th  century, 
revives  the  true  system  of  exegesis. 


528 


Index . 


Exegesis  continued — 

274  ;  his  work  and  its  influence  tor 
good,  274-278  ;  specimens  of  his 
style,  and  remarks  on  them,  276- 
278  and  ns.  ;  after  the  death  of  Lyra 
no  improvement  till  the  dawn  of 
the  Reformation,  278  ;  sketch  of  the 
labours  of  Wiclif,  Hus,  Savonarola, 
Gerson,  Picus  of  Mirandola,  and 
Tostatus,  278,  279  ;  of  Turrecremata, 
Jacob  Perez  of  Valentia,  John 
Wessel,  279  ;  with  Duns  Scotus  and 
Raymond  Lulli  begins  the  decay  of 
scholasticism,  280;.  William  .  of 
Occam  precipitates  its  dissolution, 
281  ;  the  revival  of  Platonic  studies 
also  aided,  282  ;  causes  of  the  defects 
of  scholastic  exegesis,  283  ;  1.  a 
vague  and  traditional  conception  of 
inspiration,  283  ;  2.  being  Papal, 

sacerdotal,  and  monkish, it  necessanly 
fell  with  the  Reformation,  284  ;  3. 
the  lack  of  due  equipment  in  the 
writers,  284,  285  ;  4.  their  neglect  of 
philology,  286;  5.  the  result. of  these 
defects  rendered  their  exegesis  almost 
useless,  287  ;  6.  their  abuse  of  the 
dialectic  method,  288  ;.  7.  the  bar¬ 
barous  nature  of  their  language, 

290  ;  8.  their  micrological  subtlety,. 

291  ;  summary  of  the  exegesis  of 

scholasticism,  292  n.  ;  9.  their 

assumption  that  every  part  of  Scrip¬ 
ture  admitted  of  a  multiplex  intelli- 
gentia,  294  ;  10.  the  result,  ol  this 
system  was  favourable  to  hierarchic 
usurpation,  296  ;  reflections  on  the 
system  and  on  the  great  masters  of 
it,  298-303 

Reformers,  the,  and  their  System 
of,  307—354  ;  origin  of  the  Reforma¬ 
tion,  and  the  part  Luther  played  in 
it,  307  ;  he  is  not  to  be  held  respon¬ 
sible  for  the  evils  that  sprung  out  of 
it,  307,  308  ;  the  Papacy  had  rendered 
services  to  civilisation  and  humanity , 
308  ;  but  in  the  16th  century  the 
whole  system  had  become  corrupt, 
308  ;  the  nature  and  extent  of  that 
corruption,  309-311  ;  protest  of 
mediaeval  literature  against  that 
corruption,  309  ;  influence  of  the 
Popes  in  debasing  the  Papacy,  309  ; 
and  of  the  priesthood,  310,  311  ; .  de¬ 
liverance  from  this  state  of  things 
arose  from  the  study  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  311,  312;  other  influences 
which  contributed  to  this,  312  ;  1. 


Exegesis  continued — 

the  labours  of  Lorenzo  Valla,  312  ; 
his  sound  system  of  exegesis  and  free 
textual  criticism  were  ol  great  value, 
313,  314  ;  2.  the  labours  of  Jacques  le 
Fevre  d’  taples,  314  ;  3.  still  greater 
were  the  services  of  Reuchlin,  314  ; 
he  effected  for  the  study  of  the  Old 
Testament  what  Erasmus  did  for 
the  New,  314  ;  4,  but  Desiderms 
Erasmus  ranks  next  to  Luther  in  the 
contest  with  ignorance  and  corrup¬ 
tion,  316  ;  his  eclitio  princeps  of  the 
New  Testament  formed  a  great  epoch 
in  the  history  of  Western  Christen¬ 
dom,  316  ;  he  proclaimed  it  to  be  the 
right  of  all  to  read  the  messages  of 
the  Gospel  for  themselves,  317  ;  his 
scholarship  and  exegetic  labours,  317- 
320  ;  is  the  chief  founder,  of  modern 
textual  and  Eiblical  criticism,  320  , 
estimate  of  the  nature  and  value,  of 
the  work  of  Erasmus,  320-322  ;  in¬ 
fluence  of  the  stupendous  personality 
of  Luther  on  the  false  exegesis  of  the 
pre-Reformation  period,  322,  323  ; 
the  44  intensified  self”  of  the  German 
nation,  he  gave  them  everything  that 
has  made  them  great,  323  j  well- 
marked  stages  in  his  religious  ad¬ 
vance,  324,  325  ;  in  his  fourth  stage 
he  obtained  a  clear  grasp  of  the  true 
principles  of  Scripture  interpretation, 
325  ;  1.  the  supreme  authority  of 
Scripture"  itself,  325  ;  2.  the  suffi¬ 
ciency  of  Scripture,  327  ;  3..  rejects 
the  fourfold  sense,  327  ;  4.  rejects  the 
validity  of  allegory,  328  ;  5.  the 
perspicuity  of  Scripture,  328  ;  6.  the 
right  of  private  judgment,  329  ; 
difficulty  he  found  in  maintaining 
this  last  principle,  330  ;  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  these  rules  he  lays  down.the 
true  rules  of  Scripture  interpretation, 
332-338  ;  his  views  on  various  books 
of  Scripture,  335,  336  ;  although 
some  of  his  views  were  rash,  they 
were  founded  on  a  sound  basis,  337  ; 
he  set  forth  those  views  on  which  the 
future  of  the  Christian  faith  must 
depend,  338  ;  1.  the  Word  of  God  is 
not  to  be  regarded  as  identical. and  co¬ 
extensive  with  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
339  ;  2.  his  view  of  inspiration  was 
not  verbal,  339  ;  and  3.  that  the 
Word  of  God  is  not  in  the  Scriptures 
alone,  340  ;  remarks  on  the  import¬ 
ance  of  these  views,  341  ;  if  Luther 
was  the  prophet,  Melanchthon  was 


Index. 


529 


Exegesis  continued — • 
the  teacher,  of  the  Reformation,  341  ; 
Zwingli’s  work  and  influence,  341  ; 
Oeeolampadius,  Bucer,  Brenz,  Bu- 
genhagen,  Musculus,  Camerarius, 
Bullinger,  Chemnitz,  and  Beza,  all 
agreed  with  Luther  in  principle, 
342  ;  statement  of  these,  342  ;  list  of 
the  principal  commentators  of  the 
period,  342  n.  ;  the  greatest  exegete 
and  theologian  of  the  Reformation 
was  Calvin,  342  ;  estimate  of  his  work 
and  of  its  influence,  342-345;  his  Com¬ 
mentaries  still  a  living  force,  342  ;  a 
characteristic  feature  of  his  exegesis  is 
an  abhorrence  of  hollow  orthodoxy, 
345  ;  he  anticipated  modern  criticism 
in  his  views  about  the  Messianic 
prophecies,  346  ;  his  opinion  as  ^to 
the  business  of  an  interpreter,  347  ; 
examples  of  his  comments,  347,  348  ; 
he  speaks  incessantly  of  the  supreme 
and  final  authority  of  Scripture,  349  ; 
moral  aspect  of  his  exegesis,  350, 
351 ;  his  spirit  of  intolerance,  351  ; 
advance  made  by  the  Reformers  in 
exegesis,  352  ;  reflections  on  the  great 
results  that  sprang  from  the  Reforma¬ 
tion,  353,  354 

Post-Reformation  Period,  357 — 
394  ;  the  great  work  of  the  Reformers, 

357  ;  the  advance  they  made  not  con¬ 
tinued,  357  ;  characteristics  of  the 
present  period,  358  ;  an  age  of  a  dead 
theory  of  inspiration,  and  of  contro¬ 
versial  dialectics  of  an  iron  uniformity, 

358  ;  the  work  of  the  whole  epoch 
was  retarded  by  a  double  curse,  359  ; 
tyrannous  confessionalism  and  con¬ 
tentious  bitterness,  359  ;  the  Creeds 
and  Confessions  of  the  period,  and  the 
influence  they  exerted,  359-361 ;  its 
huge  books  of  theology,  361 ;  now 
buried  in  the  dust  of  oblivion,  361  ; 
controversies  of  the  age,  362-366  ; 
their  number,  nature,  and  results, 
362-366  ;  the  two  chief  controversies 
of  the  age,  366-376  ;  on  Calvinism, 
or  the  doctrine  of  predestination, 
366  ;  on  the  double  nature  of  Christ, 
367-369  ;  on  confounding  “  inspira¬ 
tion  ”  with  “verbal dictation,”  369  ; 
“the  Bible”  and  “the  M  ord  of 
God  ”  not  synonymous,  369  ;  .on  the 
meaning  of  inspiration  as  defined  by 
the  greatest  theologians,  370  ;  how 
the  doctrine  of  Bibliolatry  arose, 
370  ;  universality  and  power  of  this 


Exegesis  continued — 

dogma  of  the  deification  of  the 
Scriptures,  370  et  seq.  ;  it  strangled 
all  spiritual  life  and  growth,  375  ; 
under  such  a  system  a  true  exegesis 
becomes  impossible,  376  ;  the  Eng¬ 
lish  Church  comparatively  untouched 
by  these  controversies,  376  ;  aids. in 
overthrowing  the  system,  377  ;  which 
gradually  disappears  from  every  Pro¬ 
testant  country  on  the  Continent, 
377  ;  how  the  deliverance  came,  378  ; 
nature  and  influence  of  Dutch  theo¬ 
logy  in  the  matter,  379  ;  Dutch  uni¬ 
versities  and  their  theologians,  379  n. ; 
influence  of  the  Pietists  in  the.  re¬ 
generation,  380-382  ;  of  the  spirit  of 
tolerance  and  culture,  382  ;  the  dawn¬ 
ing  of  modern  philosophy  had  also  a 
liberating  influence,  383  ;  mysticism 
also  contributed  to  the  lifting  up.  of 
day,  384  ;  the  influence  of  Cocceius, 
385  ;  and  the  growth  of  criticism, 
were  also  factors,  386  ;  result  of  these 
movements,  388  ;  they  produced  men 
whose  names  will  stand  for  ever 
among  the  great  and  good,  389  ;  in 
Zinzendorf  and  the  Moravian  brother¬ 
hoods  may  be  seen  the  undying  force 
of  practical  Christianity,  389,  390  ; 
in  John  James  Wetstein,  Professor  at 
Basle,  is  to  be  seen  all  that  is  best  in 
the  epoch  in  learning  and  criticism, 
391 ;  still  greater  and  more  blessed  was 
the  work  of  the  illustrious  Bengel, 
392-394 ;  whose  gentle  spirit  fitly 
closes  this  troubled  epoch,  393,  394 

Modern  Exegesis,  397— 437 ;  difficul¬ 
ty  of  giving  an  adequate  idea  of,  397  ; 
the  furious  squabbles  of  the  Lutheran 
and  Reformed  Churches  paved  the 
way  for  doubt  and  infidelity,  39/  ; 
labours  of  Leibnitz  and  Wolff,  398  ; 
of  Lessing,  399  ;  nature  of  his  work, 

399  ;  influence  of  the  Wolfenbiittel 
fragments  of  Reimarus  in  the  spread 
of  unbelief,  400  ;  extent  of  the  injury 
done  by  Reimarus  and  E.  A.  Bahrdt 

400  ;  conflict  between  religion  and 
unbelief,  401  ;  stand  made  by  Haller 
and  Euler  against  unbelief,  402  ;  cold 
nature  of  the  exegetical  labours  of 
the  time,  402  ;  of  those  of  Michaelis, 
Ernesti,  Eichhorn,  and  Paulus,  402  ; 
Semler  marks  a  distinct  epoch,  402  ; 
nature  and  influence  of  his  work, 
403-405  ;  he  is  succeeded  by  the 
genial  influence  of  Herder,  405  ;  he 

M  M 


530 


Index. 


Exegesis  continued — 

infused  the  glowing  heat  of  a  poetic 
soul  into  the  lifeless  learning  of  his  day , 
405-407  ;  the  attempt  of  Kant  to  form 
a  union  between  philosophy  .and  re¬ 
ligion,  407  ;  nature  of  Kant  s  system, 
408;  Fichte  tries  to  get  rid  of  the 
Kantian  dualism,  409  ;  the  construc¬ 
tive  movement  of  the  new  epoch 
begun  with  Schleiermacher,  409  ;  his 
works  produce  a  powerful  and  healthy 
influence,  409-411  ;  he  .  was  the 
founder  of  the  psychological  school 
of  exegesis,  409 ;  succeeded  by  Hegel, 
who  attempts  to  make  religion  a 
phase  of  philosophy,  411  ;  principle 
of  the  Hegelian  philosophy,  412 ; 
influence  of  Strauss’s  Life  of  Jesus, 
413  ;  and  of  the  works  of  Baur,  on 
the  unbelief  of  the  age,  414  ;  hut 
Neander  stems  the  rising  tide,  414  ; 
nature  and  effects  of  the  works  of 
Strauss  and  Baur,  415,  416  ;  orthodox 
reaction  caused  by,  417  ;  the  leading 
German  labourers  in  the  field  of  faith, 
419  ;  and  French,  420  ;  labours  and 
influence  of  the  English  Church  in 
Scriptural  studies,  420  etseq.  ;  leaders 
of  English  theology,  420  ;  depress¬ 
ing  effect  of  German  theology  on  the 
English  mind,  422;  influence .  of 
Coleridge  in  causing  a  reaction 
against  this,  422 ;  he  creates  a  new 
school  of  English  teachers,  423  ; 
whose  influence  is  daily  growing, 

424  ;  a  living  piety  kindled  by  their 
labours,  425  ;  effects  on  the  human 
mind  of  the  increase  of  knowledge, 

425  ;  conflict  between  religion  and 
science,  426  ;  what  should  he  the 
attitude  of  religion  to  _  science,  427  ; 
advance  of  the  human  intellect  in  all 
branches  of  knowledge,  428  ;  in  the 
knowledge  of  Scripture,  429  ;  how 
best  to  apply  this  knowledge  for  the 
good  of  all,  430  ;  the  secret  of  all 
our  progress  and  success  is  building 
on  the  Son  of  God,  431  ;  it  is  because 
all  past  systems  have  not  done  this 
that  they  have  failed,  432  ;  for  cen¬ 
turies  the  truth  of  God  has  been 
obscured  or  hidden  by  the  wilful 
perversions  of  men,  433  ;  if  a  Guide 
is  needed  for  the  understanding  of 
Scripture,  the  Lord  Christ  Himself 
is  the  only  one,  434  ;  as  He  taught 
the  Rabbis  and  Pharisees  of  His  own 
days,  so  will  He  teach  us  the  true 
mode  of  dealing  with  Scripture,  435  ; 


Exegesis  continued — 

and  nothing  better  can  be  found  than 
belief  in  Christ,  437 

Exegetes,  faults  incidental  to,  5 

Experience,  advancing,  danger  of  re¬ 
fusing  the  teaching  of,  10 

Expositor,  qualifications  of  the  perfect, 

4,  27  ;  Jerome’s  views  as  to  the  duty 
of  an,  227  n.  ;  Calvin’s  conception 
of  the  duties  of  an,  344  n. 

Expositors,  the  greatest  Puritan  and 
the  best  Roman  Catholic,  of  the  post- 
Reformation  period,  394  n.  _ 

Ezra,  seven  “counsels  of  perfection” 
attributed  to,  11  n.,  12  ;  the  founder 
of  Judaism  and  of  the  Oral  Law,  51, 
52  ;  his  influence  and  labours,  51,  52 
and  ns.  ;  estimation  in  which  he  was 
held,  and  legends  regarding  him,  53  ; 
the  gulf  that  separates  him  from  the 
great  prophets  of  his  race,  53  ;  his 
immense  influence  and  what  it  pro¬ 
duced,  54-56  ;  a  Scribe,  56  ;  his  con¬ 
ception  of  a  covenant,  58  and  n. 
Ezekiel,  the  prophet  passes  into  the 
Scribe  in,  52 

F. 

Faber  Stapulensis,  284 
Fabiola,  extract  from  J erome’s  letter  to, 
226  n. 

Fahriane,  the  Bishop  of,  311  n. 
Facundus,  his  defence  of  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia,  216  n. 

“Faith,  the  analogy  of,”  St.  Augus¬ 
tine’s  and  St.  Chrysostom’s  explana¬ 
tion  of,  236  and  n. 

Farel,  351  n. 

Farrar,  Dr.  A.  S.,  and  the  German 
schools  of  thought,  402  n. 

Fathers,  mistaken  interpretation  of 
Genesis  i.  1  by  some  of  the,  38  ; 
allusion  to  Philo  in  the,  156%.  ; 
general  view  of  the,  162  et  seq.  ; 
Milton’s  estimate  of  the,  162,  163 
and  n.  ;  Grotius’s,  162  n.  ;  Cole¬ 
ridge’s,  162  n.  ;  the  Septuagint  the 
only  Bible  used  by  the,  165  ;  influ¬ 
ence  on  early  exegesis  of  Clement  of 
Rome,  166  ;  of  Barnabas,  167-170  ; 
of  the  Apologists,  171  ;  of  Justin 
Martyr,  172-174  ;  of  Irenaeus,  174- 
177  ;  the  Fathers  of  the  third  and 
later  centuries  divided  into  three 
schools,  177  ;  the  Literal  and  Real¬ 
istic,  represented  by  Tertullian,  177  ; 
the  Allegorical,  by  Origen,  177  ;  the 
Historical  and  Grammatical,  by 


Index. 


531 


Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  177  ;  esti¬ 
mate  of  Tertullian  and  his  system  of 
exegesis,  177-180  ;  of  Cyprian,  ISO- 
182  ;  of  Clement  of  Alexandria,  183- 
187  ;  of  Origen,  187-203  ;  of  Hilary, 
203  ;  of  St.  Ambrose,  205  ;  of 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  206  ;  of 
Julius  Africanus,  207  ;  of  Bishop 
Nepos,  209  ;  of  the  martyr  Lucian, 
209  ;  of  the  presbyter  Dorotheus, 
209  ;  of  Ephraem  Syrus,  209  ;  of 
Diodorus  of  Tarsus,  212  ;  of  Theo¬ 
dore  of  Mopsuestia,  213  ;  of  Theo- 
doret,  219  ;  of  Basil  the  Great,  219  ; 
of  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  219  ;  of  Gre¬ 
gory  of  Nazianzus,  220  ;  of  Chrysos¬ 
tom,  220  ;  of  Jerome,  222  ;  of  St. 
Augustine,  234  et  seq.  ;  prevalence  of 
allegory  in  exegesis  among  the 
Fathers  generally,  240,  241  ;  errors 
of  the,  in  exegesis,  241  ;  Dean 
Church  on  the  character  of  the,  241 ; 
general  estimate  of  the,  and  of  their 
wisdom,  their  zeal,  and  their  forti¬ 
tude,  241  ;  the  saying  of  St.  Chrysos¬ 
tom  regarding  the,  242;  the  Vener¬ 
able  Bede  reckoned  amongst  the, 
249  and  n.  ;  Luther  rejects  the 
authority  of  the,  326  ;  remarks  of 
Luther  on  the,  471 

Fichte,  J.  H.,  on  the  office  of  gifted 
men,  353  n.  ;  estimate  of,  and  his 
system  of  philosophy,  409 

Ficino,  282 

Fludd,  36  n. 

Fourfold  sense  of  Scripture,  view’s  of 
the  Schoolmen  on  the,  294  et  seq.  and 
ns.  ;  receives  its  deathblow  from  the 
Reformers,  299  ;  Luther  rejects  the, 
327 

Franck,  Seb. ,  one  of  the  helpers  of  the 
Reformation,  341  ;  his  opinion  of  the 
Bible,  341 

Fringes,  opinions  as  to  the  Jewish  law 
of,  50,  87,  88  and  ns. 

Fiirst  on  the  development  of  the  canon, 
tradition,  and  Jewish  theology,  66 
n. ,  69  n. 

G. 

Gad,  writer  of  one  oi  the  lost  sacred 
books,  6 

Gaius,  Emperor,  458 

Galileo,  426,  427 

Gaonim,  or  excellent,  53  and  n. 

Gellert,  the  hymns  of,  and  their  in¬ 
fluence  on  the  German  mind,  401 

Geinara,  the  Babylonian,  12  n.  ;  im¬ 
portance  attached  by  the  Rabbis  to 


the  teachings  of  the,  62,  63  ;  formed 
a  part  of  the  Babylonian  Talmud, 
82  ;  value  the  Jews  set  upon  the,  82; 
abounds  with  the  Haggada,  90 

Gematria,  50  n. ,  51  n.,  65  n.  ;  explana¬ 
tion  of  the  Rabbinical  principle  of, 
98-100  ;  derivation  of  the  word, 
98  n.  ;  Tertullian  on,  99  n.  ;  other 
two  branches  of  the,  100  ;  further 
instances  of,  445 

Genesis,  incompetency  of  early  exegesis 
to  render  correctly  the  first  verse  of 
the  first  chapter  of,  34-38  ;  import¬ 
ance  of  its  teaching  to  mankind,  34 

Gennadius,  25  n.,  26  n. 

Genoese  Bible,  the,  5  n. 

Genus  and  species,  Tichonius’s  rule  as 
to,  25 

German  Bible,  Luther’s,  remarks  on, 
323  et  seq. 

Gerard,  Balthazar,  22,  39 

Germany,  Emperor  William  of,  last 
attempt  to  assassinate  the,  defended 
from  Scripture  examples,  39  n. 

Gerson,  Jean,  death-bed.  of,  301 

Gibbon,  his  remark  on  the  freer  latitude 
of  faith  and  practice  allowed  to  the 
disciples  of  the  Messiah,  252  n. 

Gideon,  352 

Gifted  men,  J.  H.  Fichte  on  the  office 
of,  353  7i. 

Gill,  Mr.  A.,  on  the  rendering  of  the 
sense  of  Scripture,  300  n. 

Gitten,  12  n. ,  64  n.,  68  n. 

Glosses,  difference  between,  and  Cate¬ 
nae,  250  n.  ;  marginal  and  inter¬ 
linear,  mediaeval,  nature  and  uses 
of,  251  ;  remarks  of  various  authors 
on  their  uses  and  abuses,  251  n. 

Gnomon,  value  of  Bengel’s,  393  and' n. 

Gospel  of  love  and  peace,  how  it  has 
been  desecrated  by  ignorance  and 
fanaticism,  41  and  n. 

Gratz  on  Rabbinism,  82  n.  ;  on  various 
Jewish  books,  90  n. 

Greek  philosophy,  and  the  tenets  of 
the  Greek  philosophers,  to  be  found 
in  Moses  and  the  Prophets,  128-131 
and  ns.  ;  views  of  Clement  of  Alex¬ 
andria  on  the  relation  of  Christianity 
to,  183  n. 

Greeks,  the  poems  of  Homer  become  to 
the,  a  sacred  book,  135  ;  Philo  con¬ 
siders  himself  and  his  countrymen 
as,  147  n. 

Gregory  the  Great,  estimation  in  which 
his  thirty-five  books  of  Moralia  on 
the  Book  of  Job  were  held  during  the 
Middle  Ages,  240  and  n.  ;  is  opposed 

M  M  2 


532 


Index. 


to  teaching  grammar,  246  ;  in  this 
resembles  Jack  Cade,  246  and  n.  ; 
references  to,  287,  303 
Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  one  of  the 
leaders  of  the  School  of  Antioch, 

219  ;  follows  a  via  media  in  exegesis, 

220  ;  bewails  the  growth  of  theologi¬ 
cal  technicalities,  291  n.  ;  _  on  the 
quibbling  language  of  certain  theo¬ 
logians,  293  n. 

Gregory  of  Nyssa,  the  most  Origenising 
of  all  the  Fathers,  202  ;  one  of  the 
leaders  of  the  School  of  Antioch, 
219  ;  his  system  of  exegesis,  220 
Gregory  of  Tours,  saying  of,  regarding 
the  dark  ages,  246 
Gregory  IX.,  Pope,  264  n. 

Gregory  XIII.,  Pope,  254  n. 

Grotius,  his  opinion  of  the  Fathers, 
163  n.  ;  hatred  of  Calov  for,  365  n.  ; 
remarks  of  his  enemies  and  others 
on,  380  n. 

Grynaeus,  234  n.,  344 
Gutenberg,  314 

H. 

Haggada,  nature,  contents,  and  uses 
of  the,  88-90  ;  opinions  of  the  Rabbis 
as  to  the  value  of,  89,  90  ;  influence 
of  the,  91  and  n.  ;  specimens  of  its 
exaggerations,  91  n.  ;  buried  Scrip¬ 
ture  under  masses  of  legendary  dis¬ 
tortion,  106 

Haggadoth,  the,  nature  and  uses  of,  89 
Halakha,  the,  63  ;  origin  and  nature  of, 
84  and  n.  ;  Buxtorf’s  definition  of, 
84  n.  ;  opinions  of  the  Rabbis  regard¬ 
ing,  85  ;  the  object  of  the,  87  ;  void 
of  all  spiritual  significance,  106 
Halakhoth,  “decisions,”  18  ;  the, 
nature  and  number  of,  87  and  n.,  89 
Hale,  Sir  Matthew,  40  n. . 

Haller,  made  a  stand  against  material¬ 
ism,  402 
Hamor,  21 
Harpsfield,  278  n. 

Haymo  of  Halberstadt,  a  mediaeval 
compiler,  notice  of,  250 
Heathendom,  hatred  of  the  Jews  to, 
69  n. 

Hebrew,  the  Scriptures  always  read  in 
Jewish  public  worship  in,  119  ; 
Buxtorf  and  Kennicott  on,  388  and 
n. 

Hebrew  canon  places  the  historical 
books  among  the  Prophets,  9  n. 
Hebrews,  the  whole  Epistle  to  the,  an 
a  fortiori  argument,  19  n. 


Hediots,  the  common  people  regarded 
by  the  Pharisees  as,  59  n. 

Hegel  and  his  philosophical  system, 
account  of,  411-413  and  ns. 

Hegelian  principle,  reference  to  the,  9 
Heidelberg,  315 

Heine  on  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes,  32 
Heinz  on  St.  Ambrose,  206  n. 

Hellenistic  writers  and  their  influence 
on  the  sacred  books,  125  et  seq.  ; 
they  are  superior  to  the  Rabbis, 
131 

Hengstenberg  and  his  school  of  reaction, 
notice  of,  417  n. 

Henry  III.,  39  n. 

Herder,  services  rendered  to  the  Church 
by  the  influence  of,  405  ;  nature  of 
his  work,  405-407 

Hergenrother,  Cardinal,  on  the  School 
of  Antioch,  212  ;  on  the  growth  of 
universities  and  the  fall  of  scholasti¬ 
cism,  283  n. 

Hermas,  only  one  quotation  from  the 
Holy  Scriptures  in,  171  and  n. 
Hermeneutic  manuals,  list  of  the  chief, 
during  the  Patristic  period,  23  n.  ; 
treatises  of  the  post-Reformation 
period,  37 6  n. 

Hermeneutic  rules  and  principles,  some, 
473-476 

Hermolaus  Barbaras,  284 
Hezekiah,  350 

Hibbert  Lectures,  308  n.,  312  n. 

Hilary,  22  ;  estimate  of,  and  of  his 
method  of  exegesis,  203 
Hilkiah,  the  priest,  48 
Hillel,  seven  rules  of  interpretation  of, 
18-22  ;  abstract  of  the,  18,  19  n.  ;  by 
his  seven  rules  he  became  the  founder 
of  Talmudism,  22  ;  his  rule .  of 
“  equivalence  ”  as  applied  to  Genesis  i. 
2,  34  ;  his  opinion  as  to  the  Law,  50  ; 
highest  honour  of,  to  be  called  a 
“scholar  of  Ezra,”  51  n.  ;  after  the 
death  of  the  last  prophet  the  She- 
kinah  rested  on,  51  n.  ;  he  is  the  first 
Rabbi  to  be  called  a  prince,  52  n.  ; 
his  legal  fiction  of  “the  Prosbol,” 

64  ;  sketch  of  his  origin  and  work, 
65-67  and  ns.  ;  classification  and 
hermeneutics  were  his  chief  services, 

65  ;  Shammai  and  Hillel  the  last  of 
the  “  couples  ”  who  led  the  schools, 
65  n. ;  list  of  the  patriarchs  of  the  house 
of,  66  n.  ;  authorities  on  the  life  and 
work  of,  66  n.  ;  difference  between 
the  work  of  Christ  and  that  of,  66, 
67  ;  Geiger,  Friedliinder,  and  Renan 
on,  66  n. 


Index. 


533 


Hirschfeld,  4  n. 

History,  the  objective  development  of 
the  Idea,  9  ;  secular,  a  revelation, 
10  ;  Vico’s  estimate  of,  10 

Hugo  of  St.  Cher,  his  textual  and  prac¬ 
tical  labours  on  the  Bible,  274  n. 

Hugo  of  St.  Victor,  his  estimate  of  the 
Book  of  Ecclesiastes,  32  ;  his  remarks 
on  the  Word,  252  ;  his  theory  of 
exegesis  hopelessly  perverted,  252  ; 
his  exposition  of  mysticism  and  con¬ 
templation,  257 

Homiletics,  influence  of,  on  interpreta¬ 
tion,  14  ;  have  been  to  an  incredible 
extent  the  Phylloxera  Vastatrix  of 
exegesis,  246 

Homer,  the  poems  of,  become  to  the 
Greeks  a  sacred  book,  135  ;  Plato, 
unable  to  harmonise  the  crudities  of, 
banishes  the  poets  from  his  ideal  re¬ 
public,  135  ;  how  the  Stoic  Allegor- 
ists  deal  with,  136 

Honorius  III.,  Pope,  253,  254  n. 

Holy  Scriptures,  controversies  caused 
by  the  mistaken  view  of  the  Reformers 
as  to  the,  369  et  seq. 

Holy  Spirit,  the,  and  the  written  word, 
controversies  regarding,  37 0  et  seq. 

Hooker  on  the  over-magnifying  the 
Scriptures,  372 

Hosai,  writer  of  one  of  the  lost  sacred 
books,  7 

Humanity,  Bibles  of,  sacred  books  so 
called,  1 

Hus  is  praised  by  Luther  for  his  exe¬ 
gesis,  279  ;  Luther  held  and  taught 
the  doctrines  of,  312 

Hyrcanus,  John,  55  n.,  66  n. 


I. 

Iddo,  writer  of  one  of  the  lost  sacred 
books,  7 

IxOvs,  the  famous  symbol,  101  and  n. 

Ignatius,  171 

Illyricus,  Matthias  Flacius,  liis  exposi¬ 
tion  of  the  principles  which  guided 
the  Reformers,  342  and  n.  ;  Camer- 
arius’s  judgment  on,  364  and  n. 

Innocent  III.,  Pope,  298  and  n. 

Innocent  VIII.,  Pope,  309 

Inquisition,  Spanish,  justified  by  Scrip¬ 
ture  warrant,  41  and  n. 

Inspiration,  Philo’s  views  on,  146,  147  ; 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia’s,  217  ;  the 
Alexandrian  theory  of,  217  ;  Jerome  s, 
230  ;  Luther’s,  337,  339  ;  meaning 
of,  as  understood  by  the  greatest 


theologians  and  by  the  Church  of 
England,  369  ;  the  Prayer  Book  and 
Homilies  on,  370  n. 

Interpreter,  aim  and  qualifications  of 
the  perfect,  4,  5  ;  Luther  as  an,  5  and 
n.  ;  various  qualities  with  which  an 
ideal,  must  be  endowed,  27  ;  Calvin’s 
views  as  to  the  duties  of  an,  344,  347 

Interpretation,  see  Exegesis 

Intolerance,  the,  of  Calvin  and  the 
Puritans,  350-352 

Irenaeus,  estimate  of,  and  of  his  method 
of  exegesis,  174-177  and  ns.  ;  child¬ 
ish  stories  in,  175  and  n.  ',  he  is 
the  first  who  suggests  the  view  that 
Christ’s  ransom  was  paid  to  Satan, 
176 

Isaiah,  writer  of  one  of  the  lost  sacred 
books,  7 

Ishmael,  Rabbi,  opposed  to  the  method 
of  Aqiba,  72 

Isidore,  the  Decretals  of,  312 


J. 

Jabne,  Rabbi  Jolianan  Ben  Zakkai 
founds  a  school  at,  68  and  n.  ;  be¬ 
comes  the  heiress  of  Jerusalem,  70 

Jacques  Le  Fevre  d’Etaples,  his  writ¬ 
ings  contribute  to  the  Reformation, 
314 

Jael,  352 

Jannaeus,  Alexander,  55  n. 

Jehovah,  disappearance  of  the  true 
pronunciation  of,  62  n. 

Jehu,  writer  of  one  of  the  lost  sacred 
books,  7 

Jerome,  St.,  sarcasm  of,  in  reference  to 
erroneous  interpretation,  30  ;  his 
rendering  of  the  word  Testament, 
30  n.  ;  his  rendering  of  jueTai/oeire, 
118  ;  remarks  of,  on  the  Septuagint, 
122  ?i.  ;  on  Eusebius  of  Vercellae, 
202  n.  ;  on  Hilary,  203  and  n.  ;  his 
remark  regarding  allegories,  145  n.  ; 
on  St.  Ambrose,  205  and  n.  ;  one  of 
the  glories  of  the  School  of  Antioch, 
222 ;  the  Origen  of  the  Western 
Church,  222  ;  his  character,  223  •; 
his  Vulgate  translation,  223  ;  Sul- 
picius  Severus’s  account  of  him, 
223  n.  ;  Ozanam’s  opinion  of  him, 
223  n.  ;  his  teachers,  224  n.  ;  his 
abandonment  of  the  Seventy,  224 
and  n.,  225  ;  his  views  respecting  the 
canon,  225  ;  the  care  with  which  he 
developed  the  literal  and  historic 
sense,  225  ;  his  defects,  225  et  seq.  ; 


534 


Index . 


his  haste,  225  ;  his  want  of  reflection, 
227  ;  his  hitter  prejudices,  227  ;  his 
lack  of  exegetic  decision,  228  ;  his 
views  on  marriage,  228  ;  his  views  on 
inspiration,  230  ;  his  remark  on  the 
original  identity  of  Presbyters  and 
Bishops,  230  n. ;  discrepancy  between 
his  theory  and  practice,  230  n.  ;  his 
belief  in  the  permissibility  of  decep¬ 
tion,  231  n.  ;  his  views  on  allegory, 
231-234 

Jerushalmi,  the,  or  Jerusalem  Talmud, 
nature  of,  81,  82  and  ns. 

Jesus  described  as  a  Rabbi  of  the  school 
of  Hillel,  66  and  n. 

Jesus,  Society  of,  307 

Jews,  love  of  the,  for  the  Oral  Law 
saves  them  from  national  obliteration, 
54-56  and  ns.  ;  hatred  of  the,  to 
heathendom,  69  n.  ;  their  love  for 
their  religion,  and  their  interminable 
wrangling  about  the  trifles  of  it,  70  ; 
revolts  of  the,  76%.  ;  pride  of  the, 
in  the  Mishna  and  Gemara,  82  ;  the, 
philologically  “  analogists,  ”  98  ;  be¬ 
lief  of  the,  in  the  mystic  value  and 
importance  of  names,  98;  “atone¬ 
ment  of  the  cock,”  a  custom  of  the 
Polish,  101  ;  influence  of  Greek 
literature  on  the,  of  the  Dispersion, 
113  ;  Egypt  a  school  of  wisdom  for 
the,  114  ;  number,  influence,  and 
wealth  of  the,  in  Alexandria,  115 
and  n.  ;  grandeur  of  their  Great 
Synagogue  there,  115  and  n.  ;  wide¬ 
spread  desire  of  the,  to  share  in  the 
glories  of  Greek  literature,  126  ;  list 
of  Jewish-Greek  writers,  126,  127  ; 
observation  of  the  Son  of  Sirach  on 
the  culture  of  the,  of  Alexandria, 
119  ;  contact  of  the,  with  Greek  life 
the  parent  of  Saduceeism,  139 
Jewish-Greek  writers,  their  works  and 
influence,  125  et  seq. 

Jewish  mediaeval  interpreters,  274, 
275  and  ns. ;  and  commentators,  461- 
464 

Jewish  myths  and  genealogies,  93 
Jewish  scholars,  what  modern  exegesis 
owes  to  early,  107 
Joel,  240  n.,  267,  339  n. 

Johanan  Ben  Zakkai,  Rabbi,  one  of  the 
pupils  of  Hillel,  account  of,  68-70  ; 
authorities  on  the  work  of,  70  n. 
John  a  Lasco,  351 

John  of  Damascus,  his  commentaries 
on  the  Eastern  Church,  248  and  n.  ; 
may  in  a  sense  be  regarded  as  the 
father  of  scholasticism,  262  n. 


John  of  Salisbury  on  mediaeval  theo¬ 
logical  compilations  and  glosses,  251 
n.  ;  on  the  multiplex  intelligentia  of 
Scripture,  294  ;  on  logicians,  294 
n.  ;  on  the  theology  of  the  12th 
century,  310 
Jonah,  352  n. 

Jose,  Rabbi,  expostulates  with  Aqiba 
regarding  the  written  word,  71 
Josephus,  his  views  on  inspiration,  148 
n.  ;  the  exegetical  principles  of,  452 
Joshua,  Rabbi,  raises  the  courage  of 
his  fellow  rabbis,  71  n.  ;  is  a  via 
media  scholar,  73  n. 

Juda,  Rabbi,  commits  the  Oral  Law  to 
writing,  79;  his  compilation  was 
called  The  Mishna,  80  ;  derivation 
of  the  name,  80  n.  ;  it  becomes  the 
bond  of  Jewish  nationality,  80  ; 
almost  entirely  supersedes  the  Scrip¬ 
tures,  81  ;  death  of,  81  ;  authorities 
on  the  life  and  work  of,  81  n.  ;  his 
remarks  on  rendering  a  verse  of 
Scripture,  85 

Judaism,  Ezra  the  founder  of,  51  ;  pre¬ 
served  from  destruction  by  the  Oral 
Law,  54,  55  ;  inferior  nature  of  the, 
which  Ezra  established,  56 ;  Isaac 
Disraeli  on,  69  ;  Alexandrian,  tinged 
with  Hellenic  culture,  114 
Judgment,  Luther  maintains  the  right 
of  private,  329  ;  Gerson  protested 
against  the  right  of,  330  n.  ;  op¬ 
position  of  the  other  Reformers  to, 
331 

Julian,  the  Emperor,  17 
Julius  Africanus,  estimate  of,  and  of 
his  method  of  exegesis,  207 
Julius  II.,  Pope,  309 
Julius  III.,  Pope,  316  n. 

Junilius,  24  n. 

Justin  Martyr  and  his  writings,  esti¬ 
mate  of,  and  of  his  mode  of  exegesis, 
172-174  and  ns.  ;  his  quotations  and 
their  sources,  172-174  and  ns.  ;  Re¬ 
nan’s  opinion  of,  174  n. 

Juvenal,  17 


K. 

Kabbala,  views  of  the,  on  cosmogony, 
34-37  and  ns. 

Kabbalism,  in  numbers,  25  ;  the 
various  forms  and  methods  of,  35  ; 
Christian,  and  its  methods,  36  n.  ; 
nature  of  practical,  97  ;  the  writings 
of  the  Rabbis  abound  in  symbolical, 
97  ;  the  three  rules  in,  of  Gematria, 


Index. 


535 


97-100  ;  of  Notarikon,  101  ;  and  of 
Temoorah,  102  ;  further  instances 
of  exegetic  and  symbolic,  445 
Kabbalistic  book,  notice  of  the  earliest, 

97  n.  ;  and  of  others,  97  n.  ;  alpha¬ 
bets  and  ciphers,  use  made  of,  102- 
104 

Kabbalists,  Christian,  and  their  me¬ 
thods,  36  n.  ;  many  Jewish,  became 
Christians,  102  n.  ;  Donne  on  the 
language  of  the,  294  n. 

Kant,  and  his  system  of  philosophy, 
influence  of,  on  his  age,  407 . 

Karaites,  the,  principles  and  influence 
of,  83  and  n. ;  origin  and  history  of, 
449  ;  the  founder  of  the,  449 
Karl  the  Great,  386 
Keim  on  Philo’s  system  of  exegesis, 
155  n. 

Kepler,  326,  358  n.,  426,  427 
Kethubim,  the,  60,  62  n. 

Kepaiai,  explanation  of  the  term,  7 4  n. 
Keys,  Jerome  on  the  power  of  the, 
230  n. 

Kid,  on  seething  a,  in  its  mothers 
milk,  Rabbinical  view  of,  88  n. 

KAeis  of  Melito  of  Sardis,  24  n. 

Koch,  John,  influence  of  his  works  on 
the  theology  and  exegesis  of  the 
17th  century,  385 

Koran,  Scripture  not  to  be  read  as  we 
read  the,  28  ;  its  various  schools  of 
expositors,  47  and  n.  ;  how  Ezra 
appears  in  the,  53  ;  regarded  in 
India  as  too  good  to  be  translated, 
119  n.  ;  the  Sofi  driven  to  find  mys¬ 
tical  meanings  in  the,  134^ 
k6ctjuos,  reference  to  the  Septuagint 
word,  23 
Kuenen,  4  n. 

L. 

Lafayette,  308 

Lagos,  the  house  of,  policy  of  the,  to 
the  Alexandrian  Jews,  115  ;  the 
translators  of  the  Septuagint  and 
the,  121  ;  etymology  of  the  name, 

121  n. 

Lanfranc,  289  n. 

Language,  barbarous,  of  the  Schoolmen, 
290 

Latin  Church,  teaching  of  the,  rests  on 
three  Fathers — Ambrose,  Jerome, 
and  Augustine,  248  n. 

Law,  difference  betwixt  the  Oral  and 
the  Written,  11  ;  injury  done  to  the 
fundamental  principles  of  the,  by 
Rabbinism,  20,  21  ;  opinions  of  the 


Prophets  and  the  Rabbis  as  to  the, 

49,  50  ;  number  of  precepts  of  the, 

50  ;  Ezra  the  founder  of  the  Oral, 

51  et  seq.  ;  effects  of  the,  on  the 
Jews,  52  et  seq.  ;  servility  of  the 
Jews  to  the,  when  distorted  by  tra¬ 
dition,  56  et  seq.  ;  the  Scribes  endea¬ 
vour  to  nullify  the,  61  et  seq.  ; 
creeping  things  and  the,  64,  65  ; 
Hillel  called  a  restorer  of  the,  66  ; 
the  work  of  Christ  and  Hillel  as  to 
the,  67  ;  the  study  of  the,  a  rallying- 
oround  for  the  Jewish  race,  69  , 
Aqiba’s  casuistry  as  to  the  meaning 
of  the  Written,  71  et  seq.  ;  the  Hala- 
khoth,  said  to  be  a  part  of  the  Oral, 

85  ;  disputes  of  the  Rabbis  regarding 
the,  85-87  ;  phylacteries  and  fringes, 
whether  the,  regarding  was  ever 
intended  to  be  taken  literally,  87 , 

88  and  ns.  . 

Le  Clerc,  his  theory  of  accommodation  , 

379  n. 

Lectures,  Hibbert,  308  n. ,  312  n.  ;  the 
Bampton,  311  n. 

Legalism,  protest  of  the  Prophets 
against  the  spirit  of,  49 
Leibnitz,  his  work  on  behalf  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  398  and  n. 

Leo  X.,  Pope,  308  n.,  309,  322 
Leo  XIII. ,  on  Thomas  Aquinas,  269  n. 
Lessing,  17  nature  and  influence  of 
his  works  on  the  theology  of  the 
17th  century,  399  ;  his  remarks  on 
the  Bible,  400  n. 

Letters  and  words,  Rabbinical  belief  in 
certain  mystical  or  supernatural 
powers  in,  97  et  seq. 

Levita,  Elias,  his  merits  as  a  Jewish 
commentator,  464  . 

Leviticus,  a  text  in,  is  taken  to  justify 
the  burning  of  witches,  40  and  n. 
Levitism,  the  ritual  of,  symbolical  of 
higher  truths,  126  n. 

Lewis,  Mr. ,  distinguishes  philosophic¬ 
ally  three  epochs  in  scholasticism, 
253  n. 

Lewis  of  Bavaria,  Emperor,  281 

Libanius,  17  .  c 

Lightfoot,  Bishop,  his  estimate  of 

Origen,  188,  189 
Loans,  Jacob  Jehiel,  315 
Locke  on  the  erroneous  meanings 
attached  to  words  in  interpretation, 

27 

Logos,  applied  by  Theophilus  and 
others  of  the  Fathers  to  Christ,  1/1 
Lombard,  Peter,  “Master  of  the  Sen¬ 
tences,”  influence  of  his  work  on  the 


536 


Index. 


Church  and  the  age,  262  ;  it  becomes 
the  text-book  of  scholasticism,  262  ; 
Dante  alludes  to  the  Prologue  to 
the  Sentences ,  262  n.  ;  remarks  of 
Mullinger  on  the  Sentences,  262  n.  ; 
the  Summa  of  Aquinas  and  the 
Sentences  of,  studied  more  than  the 
Bible,  263 

Lorenzo  de  Medici,  282 

Louis  XII.,  350 

Lucian,  17 

Lucian,  the  martyr,  his  revision  of  the 
Septuagint,  209 

Ludovicus  Yives  on  divine  things,  289 

Luke,  St.,  205,  208 

Luther,  his  temptation  as  an  interpre¬ 
ter,  5  ;  instance  of  his  supposed  bias 
as  a  translator,  5  n.  ;  adopts  the 
word  Testament,  30  n.  ;  his  estimate 
of  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes,  32  ;  and 
remark  on  the  various  commentaries 
on,  33  n.  ;  effect  on  the  mind  of,  on 
discovering  that  a  certain  word  in 
the  original  Greek  meant  repent,  118  ; 
Neander’s  remark  regarding  a  preva¬ 
lent  error  which  appears  in  the  trans¬ 
lation  of  the  Bible,  184  n.  ;  on 
Chrysostom,  222  n.  ;  on  Aristotle, 
266  n.  ;  on  Nicolas  of  Lyra,  277  n.  ; 
on  Hus,  279  ;  on  the  useless  specu¬ 
lations  of  the  Schoolmen,  293  ;  in¬ 
fluence  of,  in  the  Reformation,  307 
et  seq.  ;  his  identity  of  thought  with 
John  Wessel  and  Hus,  312  and  n.  ; 
antagonism  of,  to  Erasmus,  319  ;  in¬ 
fluence  of  the  stupendous  personality 
of,  on  the  false  exegesis  of  the  pre- 
Reformation  period,  322,  323  ;  the 
“  intensified  self  ”  of  the  German 
nation,  he  gave  them  everything  that 
has  made  them  great,  323 ;  chrono¬ 
logy  of  his  career,  324  n.  ;rfour  well- 
marked  stages  in  his  religious  ad¬ 
vance,  324,  325  ;  in  his  first  stage 
he  obtained  a  clear  grasp  of  the  true 
principles  of  Scripture  interpretation, 
325  ;  1.  the  supreme  authority  of 
Scripture  itself,  325  ;  2.  the  suffi¬ 
ciency  of  Scripture,  327  ;  3.  rejects 
the  fourfold  sense,  327  ;  4.  rejects 
the  validity  of  allegory,  328  ;  5.  the 
perspicuity  of  Scripture,  328  ;  6.  the 
right  of  private  judgment,  329  ; 
difficulty  he  found  in  maintaining 
this  last  principle,  330  ;  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  these  rules,  he  lays  down 
the  true  principles  of  Scripture  inter¬ 
pretation,  332-338  ;  his  views  on  the 
various  books  of  Scripture,  335,  336  ; 


although  some  of  his  views  were  rash, 
they  were  founded  on  a  sound  basis, 
337  ;  his  opinion  of  reason,  338  n.  ; 
he  set  forth  three  views  on  which  the 
future  of  the  Christian  faith  must 
depend,  338  ;  1.  the  Word  of  God 
is  not  to  be  regarded  as  identical  and 
co -extensive  with  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
339  ;  2.  his  view  of  inspiration  was 
not  verbal,  339  ;  and  3.  that  the 
Word  of  God  is  not  in  the  Scriptures 
alone,  340  ;  observations  on  the  im¬ 
portance  of  these  views,  341  ;  re¬ 
marks  of  Luther  on  the  Fathers, _  471 

Lutheran  Churches  and  theologians, 
370,  376,  380  n. 

Luzzatto  on  the  exegesis  of  the  Rab¬ 
binic  scholars,  64  n. 


M. 

Maccabean  struggle,  nature  of  the 
55  n. 

Maccabees,  the  earliest  meeting-point 
of  Jewish  and  Greek  methods  of 
exegesis  to  be  found  in  the  Fourth 
Book  of,  136  n. 

Magellan,  426 

Maimonides,  Moses,  4 ;  the  founder 
of  Jewish  rationalism,  83  and  n.  ; 
on  the  Haggadoth,  90  ;  on  trans¬ 
posing  or  altering  words,  .104;  his 
system  of  exegesis,  275  ;  Spinoza 
the  intellectual  successor  of,  384  ; 
account  of,  and  of  his  work,  463 

Mainz,  314  ;  the  Archbishop  of,  315  n. 

Maitland,  Dr.,  on  Origen’s  method  of 
allegory,  196  n. 

Malachi,  the  last  pure  glow  of  the  Old 
Testament  sun  dies  out  with,  58  n. 

Mammothrectus,  a  mediaeval  work  on 
exegesis,  280 

Manichaeans,  the,  on  the  human  nature 
of  Christ,  208  n. 

Marcus  Aurelius,  his  rigid  adherence  to 
truth,  225  n. 

Marriages,  Ezra’s  annulment  of,  54  and 
n.  ;  Jerome  on,  227,  228 

Marsh,  Bishop,  on  the  sense  of 
Scripture,  300  n. 

Mary,  Virgin,  273,  279  n.,  288,  297 

Massorah,  the,  the  Rabbis  believed  was 
delivered  to  Moses  on  Sinai,  97  ; 
history  and  derivation  of  the  word, 
450 

Massorets,  services  of  the,  to  textual 
criticism,  84  and  n. 


Index. 


537 


Maurice,  Professor  F.  D.,  on  Tertullian, 
179  n. ,  180  n.  ;  his  work  for  the 
English  Church,  429 
Maximilian,  Emperor,  352 
Mediaeval  controversies,  account  of  the 
chief,  253 

Mediaeval  Jewish  commentators,  461 
Medici,  Lorenzo  de,  on  Plato,  282 
Megilla,  31  n.,  34  n.,  50  n.,  52-54 
ns.,  57  n. 

Megillath  Taanith,  66  n. 

Melanchthon,  his  estimate  of  the  Book 
of  Ecclesiastes,  32  ;  his  work  and 
influence  on  the  Reformation,  34 
and  n.  ;  his  Loci,  and  Luther’s  re¬ 
mark  on,  361  ;  R.  Simon’s  remark 
on  the  exegesis  of,  361  n. 

Menachoth,  49  n.,  51  n.,  57  n. 
Mendelssohn,  Moses,  begins  a  new  era 
of  exegesis,  83  and  n.  ;  Spinoza  the 
intellectual  precursor  of,  384 
Messianic  hopes,  nature  of  Philo’s  and 
others’,  154  n.  ;  Psalms,  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia  on  certain,  216  ;  prophe¬ 
cies,  Calvin’s  views  on  the,  346, 
472  ;  Philo  and,  457 
Messianism,  debasement  of,  59  ;  denied 
by  Joseph  Albo  to  he  a  Jewish  doc¬ 
trine,  67  n. 

Meyer,  his  edition  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  419 

Michaelis,  critical  labours  of,  402 
Midrash  Koheleth,  31  n.,  68  n. 

Midrash,  puerilities  of  the,  37 
Midrashim,  origin  and  nature  of,  95, 
96 ;  Jewish  exegesis  as  applied  to 
the,  founded  on  four  methods,  95  ; 
the  writers  of  the,  95 
Midrashim,  account  of  the,  and  list  of 
the  chief,  442-444 

Mildert,  Bishop  van,  on  the  sense  of 
Scripture,  300  n. 

Millennial  grapes,  Tertullian’s  wild 
story  of  the,  177  n. 

Milligan,  Professor,  on  perverted  prin¬ 
ciples  of  interpretation,  170 
Milman,  Dean,  on  the  influence  of  the 
writings  of  Dionysius  the  Areopagite, 
254  n.  ;  extract  from  his  Essays  of  a 
reply  of  Erasmus  to  Zwingli,  319  n. 
Milton,  his  opinion  of  the  Fathers,  163, 
164  and  ns.  ;  of  theological  compila¬ 
tions  and  glosses,  251  n.  ;  his  protest 
against  confessions,  359  n. 

Mirandola,  finds  more  Christianity  than 
Judaism  in  the  Qabbala,  106  n. 
Mishna,  importance  attached  by  the 
Rabbis  to  the  teachings  of  the,  62, 
63  ;  origin  and  nature  of  the,  84 


et  seq.  ;  derivation  of  the  word,  84  n.  ; 
and  contents  of  the,  84  n.  ;  the 
treatise  of  the,  known  as  “  The  Egg,” 
88 

Mishna,  the,  of  Rabbi  Aqiba,  71  n. 
Mishna,  the,  of  Rabbi  Juda,  80  ;  deri¬ 
vation  of  the  name,  80  n.  ;  labours 
of  the  various  Rabbis  in  perfecting 
it,  80  ;  it  became  the  bond  of  Jewish 
nationality,  80 

Misinterpretation  of  the  Bible,  among 
the  Jews  elevated  into  a  sacred 
principle,  12  n.  ;  misinterpretation 
of  Scripture  among  the  gravest  cala¬ 
mities  of  Christendom,  39 
“  Mixtures,”  the  Pharisaic  rule  of,  64 
Modern  Exegesis,  397-437 
Moed  Qaton,  57  n. 

Monastery  of  St.  Victor,  the  chief  home 
of  mediaeval  mysticism,  257 
Monasticism,  the  whole  theory  of,  257 
Monotheism,  Genesis  i.  1,  the  basis  of 
all,  34 

Moravian  brotherhood,  influence  of, 
for  good  in  the  17th  century,  389 
More,  Henry,  36  n. 

Morton,  Henry,  352 
Mosaic  law,  devices  of  the  Scribes  for 
evading  certain  provisions  of  the,  64 
and  n. 

Moses,  Rabbinic  legend  regarding,  and 
the  crowns  attached  to  Hebrew  letters, 
75  and  n.  ;  Luther’s  opinion  of,  335, 
336 

Mosheim,  his  estimate  of  Origen,  188 
Mount  Sinai,  20 

Multiplex  intelligent ia,  sensus,  &c.,  of 
Scripture,  on  the  views  of  the  School¬ 
men  as  to  the,  294  et  seq. 

Multiplex  sensus ,  the  Rabbinic  fiction 
of,  73  n. 

Mysteries  of  numbers  in  the  Qabbala, 
96  n. 

Mystic  meanings  asserted  to  be  in  every 
letter  of  Scripture,  74-77  ;  Waterland 
on,  353  n. 

Mysticism,  mediaeval,  254  et  seq.  ;  in¬ 
troduced  into  the  monastery  of  St. 
Victor  by  William  of  Champeaux, 
259  ;  in  Richard  of  St.  Victor’s  sys¬ 
tem  of,  there  are  three  powers  of  the 
soul,  259  n. 

Mystics,  the  works  of  Dionysius  the 
Areopagite  favourites  with  the, 
254  n.  ;  mediaeval  and  German,  254 
et  seq.  ;  protest  of  the,  against  con¬ 
founding  Scripture  with  the  Word  of 
God,  374  n. 


538 


Index . 


1ST. 

Natalis  on  Thomas  Aquinas,  269  n. 
Nathan,  writer  of  one  of  the  lost 
sacred  books,  6 
Nathan  the  Seer,  221 
Neale,  Dr.  J.  M.,  on  an  undercurrent 
of  meaning  in  Scripture,  296  n. 
Neander,  his  remark  on  a  prevalent 
error  which  appears  in  Luther’s  trans¬ 
lation  of  the  Bible, _  184  n.  ;  on  the 
mystical  interpretation  of  the  Bible, 
211  n.  ;  on  the  immortality  of  the 
Gospel,  395  ;  influence  of  his  personal 
character  and  work  on  the  exegesis 
and  unbelief  of  his  time,  414 
Nehemiah’s  legalistic  prayer,  58  n. 
Neoplatonic  schools  of  Athens  and 
Edessa,  253  and  ns. 

Neoplatonism  and  its  expounders,  253 
and  ns. 

Nero,  310,  311 

New  Testament,  difference  betwixt  the, 
and  the  Old,  350  and  n.  ;  variations 
in  the  MSS.  of  the,  387 
New  Testament  writings,  on  the  dis¬ 
semination  of  the,  165  n. 

Newman,  Cardinal,  on  the  principles 
of  exegesis  of  the  School  of  Antioch, 
211  ;  on  Chrysostom,  221  n.  ;  on  me¬ 
diaeval  exegesis,  253  n.  ;  remark 
of,  regarding  God  and  the  soul, 
255 

Newton,  326,  426,  432 
Nepos,  Bishop,  his  Refutation  of  the 
Allegorists,  209 
Nicholas  V.,  Pope,  314 
Nicolas  of  Lyra,  the  Jerome  of  the 
14th  century,  his  origin,  274  n.  ; 
revives  an  improved  system  of  exe¬ 
gesis,  274  ;  influence  of  his  work, 
274-278  ;  specimens  of  his  style,  and 
remarks  on  them,  276-278  ;  Luther’s 
estimate  of,  277  n.  ;  Pope  on,  278 
n. 

Nominalism,  its  nature,  and  influence 
on  scholasticism,  281,  282  ;  Haureau 
on  the  character  of,  281  n. 

Notarikon,  explanation  of  the  Rab¬ 
binical  principle  of,  101,  446 
Notker  of  St.  Gall,  a  mediaeval  com¬ 
piler,  remark  of,  250 
Novalis  on  Spinoza,  384  n. 

Numbers,  mysteries  of,  in  the  Qabbala, 
96  n.  ;  Philo’s  fancies  about  masculine 
and  feminine  numbers,  143  and  n.  ; 
Barnabas  on,  168  and  n. 

Nuremberg  Bible,  the,  5  n. 

Niirnberg,  the  Diet  of,  311  n. 


O. 

Obadiah,  352  n. 

Occam,  William  of,  see  William  of 
Occam 

Old  Mortality ,  extract  from  Scott’s,  352 

Old  Testament,  difference  betwixt  the, 
and  the  New,  350  and  n. 

Olympiodorus,  his  opinion  of  the  Book 
of  Ecclesiastes,  32 

Oral  Law,  Ezra  the  founder  of  the,  51, 
52  ;  effects  of  the,  on  the  Jews,  54- 
56  ;  love  of  the,  saves  the  Jews  from 
national  obliteration,  54-56  and  ns.  ; 
good  and  evil  largely  mixed  in  the,  56, 
57;  references  of  Josephus,  Philo,  and 
St.  Paul  to  the,  79  n. ;  the,  committed 
to  writing  by  Rabbi  Juda,  79  ;  and 
is  called  the  Mishna ,  80  ;  importance 
of  the,  80  ;  derivation  of  the  name, 
80  n.  ;  what  it  consisted  of,  80  n. 

Origen,the  greatest  master  of  the  School 
of  Alexandria,  estimate  of  his  life, 
teaching,  and  influence,  187-203  ; 
Mosheim’s  opinion  of,  188  ;  Bishop 
Lightfoot’s,  188,  189  ;  number  and 
nature  of  his  works,  188  n.  ;  his  false 
views  and  inferences,  189-194  ;  his 
allegoric  system,  196-200  ;  his  three¬ 
fold  sense,  196,  197  ;  his  arbitrary 
fancies  and  errors,  198,  199  ;  immense 
influence  of,  201  ;  Fathers  who  ad¬ 
mired  or  imitated  him,  201,  202 

Oxford  movement,  effects  of,  on  the 
English  Church,  425 

Ozanam,  his  opinion  on  Jerome,  223  n. 


P. 

Paine,  17 

Palestinian  method  of  exegesis,  origin 
and  nature  of,  11 

Pamphilus,  the  martyr,  founds  a  theo¬ 
logical  school  at  Caesarea,  209  n. 

Pantaenus,  12 

Papacy,  testimonies  to  the  services  ren¬ 
dered  by  the,  to  civilisation  and 
humanity,  308  ;  corruption  of  the, 
308-312  ;  Pope  Adrian  YI.  on  the 
corruption  of  the,  311  n. 

Papal  power,  the  scholastic  system 
favourable  to,  296  ;  statement  of 
Papal  claims,  309  and  n. 

Parallel  passages,  the  abuse  of,  469 

Paris,  the  Theological  Faculty  of,  320 

Paschal  Lamb,  Rabbinical  dispute  re¬ 
garding  the  offering  of  the,  88 

Paschasius  Radbertus,  a  mediaeval 
compiler,  notice  of,  250 


Index. 


539 


Passive  obedience,  the  doctrine  of,  jus¬ 
tified  by  Scripture,  40  and  n. 
Patriarchs  of  the  house  of  Hillel,  names 
and  number  of,  66  n. 

Patristic  Exegesis,  161,  242 
Patristic  reasons  for  adopting  allegory, 
459 

Patristic  system  of  exegesis,  period 
during  which  it  lasted,  12  ;  influence 
of  Augustine  during  the,  24  ;  and 
use  made  of  allegory,  24  ;  rules  of 
Tichonius  as  applicable  to  the,  24- 
26  ;  list  of  chief  hermeneutic  manuals 
in  use  during  the,  23,  24  n. 

Paul,  St,  166  n.,  171,  185  n.,  187  n., 
195  n.,  196,  282,  287,  290,  291, 
348,  363 

Paul  IV.,  Pope,  316  n. 

Paulinus,  Jerome’s  letter  to,  226, 
227  ns.  ;  what  Du  Pin  said  of,  233  n. 
Paulus,  180  n. 

Paulus  of  Burgos,  his  views  on  the 
literal  sense,  278 

Pentateuch,  the,  to  be  regarded  as  an 
allegory,  35  ;  its  injunctions  often 
perverted,  39  ;  is  disparaged  by  the 
Rabbis  in  comparison  with  the 
Mishna,  62  ;  on  extracting  Greek 
philosophy  from  the,  130  ;  what  the, 
was  to  the  Rabbis,  131 
irepl  Trda-rjs  ypadys,  etc.,  extract  from 
Clemens  Alexan.  ,24  n. 

Persecution  for  difference  of  opinion  in 
religion,  view  of  Calvin  and  the 
Puritan  divines  on,  350-352 
Perspicuity  of  Scripture,  Luther  s  views 
on  the,  328 
Peter  of  Clugny,  301 
Peter,  St.,  185,  204,  205,  208  n.,  340, 


346  n.  . 

Pharisaism,  nature  of,  in  the  days  of  the 
Second  Temple,  11  ;  its  mode  of 
dealing  with  the  Written  Law,  11,  56 
et  seq.  ;  it  reigned  supreme  in  the 
days  of  our  Lord,  59  ;  its  rule  of 
“  Mixtures,”  64 
Pliilip,  the  inquisitors  of,  16 
Philip  of  Hesse,  351 
Philo,  12  ;  his  principles  of  interpreta¬ 
tion,  22,  23;  reference  to  various 
treatises  of,  22  n.,  23  n.  ;  his  treat¬ 
ment  of  Genesis  i.  1,  37,  38  and 
ns.  ;  the  writings  of,  the  chief  monu¬ 
ment  of  Alexandrian  exegesis,  111  ; 
the  method  of  allegory  in  exegesis 
culminates  in  the  writings  of,  127  ; 
thinks  the  Greek  philosophers  bor¬ 
rowed  from  Moses,  129  n.  ;  natuie  of 
an  Alexandrian  of  the  school  of,  133  ; 


all  renegades  from  Judaism  repudi¬ 
ated  by,  133  n. ;  the  Greek  method  of 
exegesis  brought  to  completion  by, 
136  ;  the  works  of,  the  epitome  and 
development  of  the  Allegorists,  137_; 
nature  and  extent  of  his  culture,  137, 
138  ;  freedom  of  his  practice  in  every¬ 
day  life,  137  n.  ;  list  of  works  in 
which  all  that  is  personally  known 
of  him  may  sbe  found,  137  n,  ;  his 
eclecticism,  138  ;  his  literalism,  139  ; 
his  rationalising,  139  ;  results  in  a 
complete  perversion  of  Scriptuie, 
139,  140  ;  his  favourite  mode  of  ad¬ 
dress  to  his  reader,  139  ;  believes 
himself  to  be  inspired,  139,  140  and 
n.  ;  nature  of  his  theology,  142  and 
ns.  ;  account  of  his  allegories,  142- 
146  ;  his  fancies  about  masculine 
and  feminine  numbers,  143 ;  his 
variable  symbols  and  exegetic  fri¬ 
volity,  146,  147  ;  his  views  on 
inspiration,  147,  148  and  n.  ;  liis  ex¬ 
traordinary  notion  regarding  Scrip¬ 
ture,  149  n.  ;  his  rules  of  exegesis, 
149-152  ;  his  exegetic  principles 
differ  from  those  of  the  Talmud  in 
five  respects,  150  n.;  result  of  his 
system,  152  et  seq.  ;  unreliable 
nature  of  his  etymologies,  152  n.  ■, 
his  Messianic  hopes,  154  n.  ;  his 
futile  eclecticism,  155  ;  fables  re¬ 
garding,  156  n.  ;  allusions  to,  in  the 
works  of  the  Fathers,  156  n.  ;  sum¬ 
mary  and  estimate  of  his  system, 
154-157  ;  notwithstanding  its  errors, 
there  is  a  Divine  progress  observable 
throughout,  157  ;  his  use  of  the 
Septuagint,  452  ;  his  phrases  for  the 
literal  and  allegoric  senses,  455  ; 
Messianic  hopes  and,  457  ;  the 
Messiah  does  not  occur  in  his  writ¬ 
ings,  457  ;  a  deplorable  specimen  of 
his  exegesis,  457 

Philology,  of  the  Schoolmen,  specimens 
of  the,  286  n.  ;  Erasmus’s  knowledge 
of,  321  n. 

Phylacteries  and  fringes,  dispute  as  to 
the  law  regarding,  87,  88  and  ns. 
Picus  of  Mirandola,  his  interpretation  of 
Genesis  i.  1,  36  ;  his  Platonism  and 
Kabbalism,  279 

Pierius,  12,  202  . 

Pietism,  definition  of,  381  n.  ;  its  in¬ 
fluence  on  German  life,  382  ;  Dorner 
on  the  opponents  of,  382  n. 

Pietists,  influence  of  the,  in  reviving  a 
healthy  system  of  exegesis  m  the 
17th  century,  380 


540 


Index. 


“Pilpul,”  explanation  of  the  term, 
92  n. 

Pius  II.,  Pope,  309,  313  n. 

Pius  V.,  Pope,  316  n. 

Plato,  banishes  the  poets  from  his 
ideal  republic,  135  ;  effects  of  the 
revival  of  the  study  of,  on  scholasti¬ 
cism,  282;  Lorenzo  de  Medici  on,  282; 
mediaeval  students  of,  282  ;  reference 
to,  343  n. 

Platonic  studies,  the  revival  of,  in  the 
15th  century  leads  to  the  downfall  of 
scholasticism,  282 

Plotinus,  influence  of  the  Qwyj]  p.6vov 
irpbs  fjiouov  on  mysticism,  255  and  n.  ; 
references  to,  282,  300  n. 

Plutarch,  343  n. 

Poets,  protest  of  the  greatest,  against 
the  misapplication  of  Scripture,  41 
Polybius,  343  n. 

Polycarp,  171 

Pope,  quotation  from,  254  n.  ;  on  the 
quibbling  language  of  the  Schoolmen, 
293  n. 

Popes,  claims  of  the,  to  depose 
sovereigns,  39  n.  ;  the  atrocious 
deeds  of  the,  justified  by  Scripture, 
40,  41  and  n.  ;  the  power  of  the, 
upheld  by  perversions  of  Scripture, 
296  et  seq.  ;  corruption  of  the,  309 
Popes— 

Adrian  YI.,  311  n.,  319  n. 

Alexander  YI.,  309,  312 
Clement  Y.,  316  n. 

Clement  YII.,  309 
Clement  YIII.,  316  n. 

Eugenius  III.,  262,  465 
Gregory  IX.,  264  n. 

Gregory  XIII.,  254  n. 

Honorius  III.,  253,  254  n. 

Innocent  YIII.,  309 
Julius  II.,  309 
Julius  III.,  316  n. 

Leo  X.,  308  n.,  309,  322 
Leo  XIII.,  269  n. 

Nicholas  Y.,  314 
Paul  IY.,  316  n. 

Pius  II.  (Aeneas  Sylvius),  309,  313  n. 
Pius  Y.,  316  n. 

Sixtus  IY.,  106,  309 
Urban  Y.,  264  n. 

Porismatic  method  of  theology,  361 
Porphyry,  17 

Post-Reformation  Epoch,  357-394 
Post-Reformation  exegesis  or  interpreta¬ 
tion,  16 

Potiphar’s  wife,  21 

Practice,  discrepancy  between  nominal 
theory  and  actual,  230  n. 


Predestination,  the  Post-Reformation 
view  regarding,  366 
Presbyters  and  Bishops,  Jerome  on  the 
original  identity  of,  230  n. 

Princes,  assassinations  of,  justified  by 
Scripture  example,  39 
Private  judgment,  the  right  of,  Luther’s 
view  of,  329  ;  Gerson  protests  against 
the  right  of,  330  n.  ;  opposition  of 
the  other  Reformers  to,  331 
Prophecy,  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia’s 
views  on,  217,  218 

Prophets,  their  protest  against  the 
spirit  of  legalism,  49  ;  and  their 
contempt  for  the  yoke  of  ritual 
bondage,  49  ;  teachings  of  the, 
admitted  theoretically,  50  ;  difference 
between  the  spirit  of  the,  and  of  the 
Rabbis,  51 

“Prosbol,  the,”  derivation  and  ex¬ 
planation  of  the  term,  64  and  n. 
Pseudo-Aristeas,  see  Aristeas 
Ptolemy,  34,  172  n. 

Ptolemy  Euergetes,  128 

Ptolemy  Philadelphia,  115  n.,  128  n. 

Q. 

Qabbala,  the,  origin  and  nature  ot 
the,  95,  96  ;  division  of  the,  96  n.  ;  a 
system  of  arbitrary  mysticism,  106  ; 
at  the  close  of  the  15th  century  many 
Christians  were  eager  to  study  the, 
106  n. 

Qeren  Happuk,  remarks  on  the  name, 
125,  213  n. 

Qiddushin,  21  n .,  51  n. 

Qimchis,  the  family  of  the,  their 
services  to  Hebrew  philology,  464 
Quintilian,  343  n. 

R. 

Rabanus  Maupjjs,  and  his  compiled 
commentary  on  the  Epistles,  account 
of,  250,  251  and  ns.  ;  finds  Roman¬ 
ism  in  Moses  and  the  Psalms,  297 
Rabbi  Abraham  Ibn  Ezra,  one  of  the 
greatest  of  mediaeval  commentators, 
462 

Rabbi  Abuhu  on  the  Halakha,  90 
Rabbi  Anan  Ben  David  Abba,  the 
founder  of  the  Karaites,  449 
Rabbi  ben  Levi  on  the  Haggada,  90 
and  n. 

Rabbi  Chaneenah  bar  Pappa  on  Scrip¬ 
ture,  the  Mishna,  the  Talmud,  and 
the  Haggada,  90  n. 

Rabbi  Chija,  90 


Index. 


541 


Rabbi  Eleazar,  19  n.,  20 
Rabbi  Gamaliel  II.,  70,  79,  445 
Rabbi  Gamaliel  V.,  443 
Rabbi  Isaac  ben  Pinclias  on  the  Hag- 
gada,  89 

Rabbi  Ishmael,  4,  19  n.,  22 
Rabbi  Jacob,  his  interpretation  of 
Genesis  i.  1,  36 
Rabbi  Jochanan,  21  n. 

Rabbi  Johanan  Ben  Zakkai,  and  the 
subjects  he  proposed  for  discussion, 
444 

Rabbi  Saadia  Gaon,  the  greatest  medi¬ 
aeval  exegete,  461 

Rabbi  Samuel  ben  Meier,  a  mediaeval 
commentator,  462 
Rabbi  Simon  ben  Lakish,  20  n. 

Rabbi  Simon’s  remarks  on  the  exe¬ 
gesis  of  Melanchthon,  361  n. 

Rabbina  Abina,  12  and  n.  ;  closes  the 
Talmud,  82 

Rabbinic  bodies,  number  and  duration 
of,  52,  53  and  n. 

Rabbinic  exegesis,  origin  and  nature  of, 

11  ;  period  during  which  it  lasted, 

12  ;  services  rendered  to  Scripture  by 
the,  15  ;  nature  and  principles  of, 
fully  explained,  47  et  seq.  ;  Ezra  the 
originator  of  it,  52  ;  names  and  dura¬ 
tion  of  the  various  schools  of,  52,  53, 
and  n.  ;  nature  and  effect  of  Ezra’s 
system  of,  56-63  ;  the  leading  build¬ 
ers  of  the  system,  65-81  ;  summary 
of  the  result  of  centuries  of,  83  et 
seq.  ;  the  Halakha,  the  Haggada, 
and  the  Qabbala  the  main  sources 
of,  84  ;  the  Targums,  the  Talmud, 
and  the  Midrashim  contain  the 
chief  contributions  of,  84  ;  ex¬ 
planation  of  the  part  played  by 
Gematria  in,  97-100  ;  two  branches 
of  it — Architectonic  and  Figurative, 
100  ;  by  Notarikon,  101  ;  by  Ternoo- 
rah,  102  ;  by  another  method,  104  ; 
summary  of  the  results  of,  lor  2,000 
years,  105-107  ;  further  instances  of, 
445  et  seq. 

Rabbinic  fiction  of  multiplex  sensus, 
the,  73  and  n. 

Rabbinic  schools,  number,  duration, 
and  influence  of,  52,  53  and  n. 
Rabbinism,  built  on  superstition  and 
exclusiveness,  60  ;  nature  of,  61  ; 
the  hedge  about  the  Law  tlia  main 
function  of,  62 

Rabbis,  the,  on  the  importance  of  the 
Law,  11  n.  ;  on  the  interpretation  of 
Genesis  i.  2,  34,  35  ;  on  the  teachings 
of  the  Prophets,  50  ;  number  of  pre¬ 


cepts  proclaimed  by  the,  50  ;  injuri¬ 
ous  effects  of  the  teachings  of  the, 
56-58  ;  their  estimate  and  treatment 
of  the  common  people,  59  n.  ;  exact¬ 
ing  nature  of  the  yoke  of  the,  60  ; 
effects  of  the  “ordination”  of  the, 

61  ;  the  voice  of  the,  reckoned  as 
the  voice  of  God,  62  ;  importance  of 
the  teaching  of  the,  63  ;  account  of 
the  five  chief,  who  followed  Ezra  as 
the  creators  and  expounders  of  the 
Oral  Law,  65  ;  Hillel,  65-67  ;  Sham- 
mai,  67,  68  ;  Johanan  Ben  Zakkai, 
68-70  ;  Rabbi  Aqiba,  71-79  ;  Rabbi 
Juda,  79 ;  list  of  those  who  remon¬ 
strated  with  Rabbi  Aqiba,  71,  72  ; 
Aqiba  and  the,  assert  that  there  is  a 
mystic  meaning  in  every  letter  of 
Scripture,  74-77  ;  their  explanation 
of  the  two  yods,  75,  76  and  n.  ; 
Rabbis  that  succeeded  Aqiba,  78  ; 
names  and  labours  of  mediaeval,  82, 
83  ;  opinions  of  the,  regarding  the 
Halakha,  85  ;  disputes  of  the,  in  the 
Jewish  schools,  86  ;  trifling  nature  of 
the  subjects  of  these  disputes,  86  and 
ns.  ;  on  the  Halakha  and  the  Hag¬ 
gada,  90  ;  the  writings  of  the,  abound 
in  symbolical  Kabbalism,  97  ;  notice 
of  some  mediaeval,  274-276  and  ns.  ; 
self-glorification  of  the,  441 ;  notices 
of  some  mediaeval,  449,  461 

Rachel,  disputed  etymology  of  the 
name,  23  n. 

Rachel,  the  wife  of  Rabbi  Aqiba, 
account  of  his  love  for  her,  72 
and  n. 

Rambach’s  Institutiones  Hermen. 
Sacrae,  notice  of,  371  n. 

Rashi,  his  interpretation  of  the  first 
verse  of  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis, 
35  ;  his  opinion  as  to  the  importance 
of  the  law  about  fringes,  50,  51  n.  ; 
his  remark  on  the  commands  and 
prohibitions  of  the  Law,  62  n.  ;  refer¬ 
ence  to,  83  ;  becomes  the  master  of 
Nicolas  of  Lyra,  275  and  n.  ;  his 
merits  as  an  exegete,  462 
Rathmann  of  Liibeck  on  the  nature 
and  functions  of  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
372 

Rationalism,  controversy  between  Ber¬ 
nard  and  Abelard  on,  253 
Raymond  Lulli,  helps  to  precipitate 
the  fall  of  scholasticism,  280 
“Read  not  so,  but  so,”  a  celebrated 
Rabbinic  formula,  104  and  n. 

Reason,  Alexander’s  book  to  prove  that 
animals  are  endowed  with,  138  n.  ; 


542 


Index. 


Erigenaon  the  power  of,  253;  Luther  s 
opinion  of,  338  n. 

Recapitulation,  Tichonius’s  rule  as  to, 
25 

Reformation  era,  period  during  which 
the  exegesis  of  the,  lasted,  12  ;  and 
of  the  exegesis  of  the  post-,  12  ;  re¬ 
vived  the  studies  which  promoted  a 
sound  interpretation,  16  ;  effects  ot 
the,  on  exegesis,  16 
Reformation,  the,  307,  308  and  n.,  311- 
313 

Reformers,  the,  307-354  _ 

Reimarus,  influence  of,  on  disbeliet, 
400 

Renaissance,  the,  308  n.,  313 
Renaissance  and  the  Reformation, 
Beard  on  the,  308  n. 

Renan,  his  estimate  of  Justin  Martyr, 
174  n.  ;  and  of  the  system  of  Thomas 
Aquinas,  271  n.  ;  on  the  trivialities 
of  the  Schoolmen,  294  n. ;  on  disputes 
regarding  errors,  363  ;  on  the  methods 
of  the  19th  century  in  exegesis, 
404  n.  ;  Via  de  Jesus  does  little  harm, 
419 

Rene,  Duchess  of  Ferrara,  350 
Reuchlin,  endeavours  to  prove  the 
Trinity  from  the  first  verse  of  the 
first  chapter  of  Genesis,  35  ;  his  ser¬ 
vices  in  bringing  about  the  Reforma¬ 
tion,  314  ;  he  did  for  the  study  of 
the  Old  Testament  what  Erasmus 
did  for  the  New,  314  ;  incurs  the 
enmity  of  the  Church,  315,  316 
Richard  of  St.  Victor  on  contempla¬ 
tion,  258 

Ritual  bondage,  contempt  of  the  pro¬ 
phets  for  the  Jewish  yoke  of,  49 
Robertson,  F.  W.,  his  observation  on 
Luther’s  rule  of  finding  Christ  every¬ 
where  in  Scripture,  334  n. 

Rome,  corruption  of  Papal,  307-311 
Rupert  of  Deutz,  his  remark  on  St. 
Augustine,  261  n. 

4 

s. 

Sacred  books,  whence  their  authority 
is  derived,  and  the  changes  they 
undergo  in  the  course  of  ages,  1  ; 
the  Bible  stands  alone  among,  2 
Sadoletus,  284 

§t.  Ambrose,  estimate  of,  and  of  his 
method  of  exegesis,  205  ;  his  opinion 
of  Origen,  215  n. 

St.  Bartholomew,  the  massacre  of,  ex¬ 
ulted  in,  40 


St.  Bernard,  his  eighty-six  sermons  on 
the  Song  of  Solomon,  32  n. 

St.  John,  First  Epistle  of,  erroneous 
conception  for  seventeen  centuries  of 
the  design  of,  31 
St.  John  Lateran,  312 
St.  Paul,  his  epithet  on  Scripture  truth, 

7  ;  a  Haggadist,  89  n.  ;  opinion  ot 
some  of  the  Fathers  on  the  supei- 
naturalism  of,  212  n.  ;  Jerome  on, 
231  and  n. 

Saint  Pietro  Damiano,  309 
Salome,  184  n. 

Sanhedrin,  18  n.,  20  n.,  32  n.,  34  n., 
51  n.,  62-66  and  ns.  ;  reference  of 
the,  to  a  mode  of  violating  the 
Mosaic  Law,  64  ;  reference  to,  256  n. 
Salamance,  316  n. 

Samson’s  Hair,  extract  from  a  book  so 
called,  299 

Savonarola  as  a  commentator,  279 
and  n. 

Schleiermacher  on  Spinoza,  384  n.  ; 
begins  a  new  constructive  movement 
in  exegetics,  409  ;  nature  and  influ¬ 
ence  of  his  work,  409-411 
Scholastic  epoch  of  exegesis,  character¬ 
istics  of  the,  26 
Scholastic  Exegesis,  245-303 
Scholasticism  divided  into  three  epochs, 
253  n,  ;  Cardinal  Hergenrother’s 
definition  of,  265  n.  ;  history  of  the 
origin  of,  466  ;  opinions  on  by  various 
authors,  470 

Schoolmen,  futility  of  their  mode  of 
exegesis,  10  ;  various  Platonic  and 
Aristotelian  views  among  the,  11  ; 
period  during  which  their  mode  of 
exegesis  lasted,  12  ;  its  nature  and 
influence,  26 ;  their  allegorical  method 
of  interpreting  the  Book  of  Eccle¬ 
siastes,  32  and  n.  ;  estimate  of  the 
character  of,  300-303  ;  distinguish¬ 
ing  titles  of  the,  465.  For  the  whole 
system  of  the,  see  under  Scholastic 
Exegesis 

Science,  paralysed  by  the  misinterpre¬ 
tation  of  Scripture,  41  andw. ;  attacks 
on  by  the  Reformers,  358  n.  :  the  dis¬ 
coveries  of,  and  the  Church,  426-429 
Scribe,  a  title  of  more  honour  than 
priest,  52  n. 

Scribes,  the,  their  influence  and  teach¬ 
ing,  56  ct  seq. 

Scribes,  the  writings  of  the  prophets 
the  direct  antithesis  to  the  views 
and  methods  of  the,  49  ;  the  answer 
of  Christ  as  to  the  two  great  com¬ 
mandments  of  the  law,  appreciated 


Index. 


543 


by  some  of  the,  50 ;  influence  and 
teaching  of  the,  56  ct  seq.  ;  declared 
to  be  the  successors  of  Moses,  60  ; 
the  professed  object  of  the,  to  exalt 
and  glorify  the  law,  61  ;  eulogy,  of 
the  in  the  Targum,  60  n.  ;  teaching 
of  the,  deemed  superior  to  that  of 
Scripture,  62,  63  ;  they  substitute 
fiction  for  Scripture  history,  63  ; 
and  set  aside  the  plain  meaning 
of  the  laws  they  professed  to  deify, 
64  ;  their  device  for  evading  the 
Mosaic  provision  of  the  Sabbatic 
year,  and  of  the  law  of  the  remission 
of  debt,  64  n. 

Scripture,  threefold  and  fourfold  sense 
of,  26  n.  ;  the  Vulgate,  the  Septua- 
gint,  and  the  various  Protestant  ver¬ 
sions  teem  with  errors,  27  n.  ;  “  Word 
of  God  ”  not  applicable  indiscrimin¬ 
ately  to  all  the  books  of,  28  ;  when 
so  applied  is  the  deathblow  to  all 
honest  interpretation  of  the,  28  ; 
testimony  of  a  Scotch  divine  in  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  interpretation  of,  28  n.  ; 
proof  texts  of,  in  common  use,  mis¬ 
taken  accommodations,  29  ;  effects 
of  the  allegorical  method  as  applied 
to  various  books  of,  31,  32;  on  the 
importance  of  the  true  sense  of,  being 
made  known,  38  et  seq.  ;  the  dreadful 
results  of  the  misinterpretation  of, 
38-43  ;  the  greatest  service  that  can 
be  rendered  to,  is  to  free  it  from  false 
dogma,  42,  43  ;  testimony  of  various 
divines  as  to  the  spiritual  value  of 
the  teaching  of,  42,  43  ;  teachings  of 
the  prophets  as  to  the  spirit  of  the, 
49  et  seq.  ;  division  of  the  books  of, 
in  the  days  of  Ezra,  59  ;  the  Mishna 
and  the  Gernara  valued  by  the  Rabbis 
above  the,  62,  63  ;  the  Scribes  sub¬ 
stitute  fictions  for  the  teachings  of, 
63  ;  Aqiba  asserts  that  there  is  a 
mystical  meaning  in  every  letter  of 
Scripture,  74-77  ;  mistranslations 
and  perversions  of,  in  the  Septuagmt, 
119  et  seq.  ;  Aristobulus  asserts 
Scripture  is  not  to  be  literally  under¬ 
stood,  130  ;  explanation  of  the  fact 
that  the,  has  met  with  an  infinitude 
of  varying  and  opposite  interpreta¬ 
tions,  134  ;  Philo’s  eclecticism, 
literalism,  and  rationalising  results 
in  a  complete  perversion  of,  140-142  ; 
Philo’s  views  on  the  inspiration  of, 
146,  147  ;  extraordinary  notion  of 
Philo  and  others  regarding,  148  and 


n.  ;  what  .Scripture  claims  for  itself, 
161-163  ;  Barnabas’s  views  as  to  the 
teaching  of  the,  167  et  seq.  ;  views  of 
Theophilus  of  Antioch  as  to  the, 
171  ;  of  Justin  Martyr,  172-174; 
of  Irenaeus,  174-177  ;  of  Tertullian, 
177  et  seq.  ;  of  Cyprian,  180-182  ;  of 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  184-187  ;  of 
Origen,  187-203  ;  his  views  on  the 
trivialities  and  immoralities  of,  191, 
192  ;  Hippolytus’s  system  of  explain¬ 
ing,  201  n.  ;  Methodius’s,  201  ; 
Hilary’s,  203  ;  St.  Ambrose’s,  205  ; 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria’s,  206  ; 
Julius  Africanus’s,  207  ;  on  the  mys¬ 
tical  interpretation  of,  210,  211  ; 

views  of  the  founder  and  leading 
teachers  of  the  school  of  Antioch  as 
to  the  interpretation  of,  210  et  seq.  ; 
St.  Augustine’s  mode  of  interpreting, 
236  et  seq. ;  the  Venerable  Bede’s, 
248  ;  St.  Bernard  and  the  mediaeval 
mystics  on,  255  et  seq.  ;  an  old  Pope  s 
remark  on  the,  258  n.  ;  views  of 
Abelard  and  Peter  Lombard  on  the, 
259-263  ;  of  Albertus  and  of  Thomas 
of  Aquino,  267-272  ;  of  Bonaventura, 
272  ;  of  Nicolas  of  Lyra,  274-278  ; 
views  of  Schoolmen  generally  on  the, 
278-300  ;  services  of  Lorenzo  Yalla, 
of  Jacques  Le  Eevre,  of  Reuchlin, 
and  of  Erasmus,  to  the,  312-322  ; 
above  all,  of  Luther,  323  et  seq.  ;  list 
of  those  who  maintained  the  single 
sense  of,  in  the  16th  century, 
328  n.  ;  views  of  Melanchthon  and 
Zwingli,  341  ;  of  Calvin,  342  et  seq.  ; 
of  some  of  the  divines  of  the  post- 
Reformation  period,  367  et.  seq.  ;  of 
Rathmann  of  Liibeck,  372  ;  of  the 
Dutch  divines,  379  ;  of  Spener,  380  : 
of  Calixtus,  382  ;  of  Spinoza,  383  ; 
of  Bohme,  384  ;  of  Koch,  385  ;  of 
Cappellus,  386  ;  of  Wetstein,  391  ;  of 
Bengel,  392  ;  of  Lessing,  399  ;  of 
Reimarus,  400  ;  ot  Sender,  402  ; 
of  Herder,  405  ;  of  Kant,  407  ;  of 
Schleiermacher,  409  ;  ol  Hegel,  412  ; 
of  Strauss,  413  ;  of  Baur,  414  ;  oi 
Neander,  414  ;  of  divines  of  the 
English  Church,  420  et  seq.  ;  freedom 
of  modern  criticism  of,  429  et  seq. 


Scripture,  passages  of,  quoted  or 


REFERRED  TO  : — 

Actsi.  8 

—  ii.  47 

—  ii.  41 

—  vii.  16 


...  343w 
5  n 

...  343 n 
...  345n 


544 


Index 


Scripture  continued — 
Acts  vii.  16 

—  xiii.  20 

—  xiii.  9 

—  xv.  9  . 

—  xv.  10 

—  xv.  20 

—  xv.  28 

—  xvii.  34 

—  xxii.  16 

r  —  xxvii.  12 

Amos  ii.  4 

—  v.  21,  22  ... 

—  ix.  11 

Cant.  ii.  iv 

—  iv,  3 ... 

—  v.  12 

1  Chron.  ii.  55 

—  viii.  10 

—  ix.  26 

—  xix.  6 

2  Chron.  xiii.  22 

—  xxviii.  7 

—  xxxvi.  16  ... 

Col.  i.  13 

—  i.  16 . 

—  ii.  8 . 

1  Cor.  i.  10 

—  ii.  5  ... 

—  ii.  6  . . . 

—  ii.  6,  7 

—  ii.  15 

—  v.  7,  8 

—  vi.  11 

—  vii.  39 

—  vii.  42 

—  viii.  1 

—  viii.  6 

—  ix.  9,  10 

—  ix.  13 

—  x.  1 . 

—  xi.  27 

—  xiii.  2 

—  xiv.  11 

—  xv.  37 

2  Cor.  iii.  6 

—  iii.  7-13,  14... 

—  iii.  14 

—  iii.  17 


Scripture  continued — 

...  176% 

..  349% 

2  Cor.  iv.  2  . 

5  6n 

—  x.  8  ... 

...  318% 

..  313ti 

—  xi.  3 ... 

...  369 

..  371 

—  xi.  23 

...  25177 

..  49% 

..  27% 

—  xii.  7 

...  346% 

54% 

Dan.  ii.  34 

...  176% 

..  313% 

—  iv.  12 

...  297 

...  287 

—  vii.  9 

...  448 

..  318% 

—  ix.  24 

36% 

...  48% 

—  ix.  27 

...  100 

...  49% 

Deut.  i.  31 

...  456 

...  218 

—  iv.  36 

...  20% 

—  x.  12 

...  50% 

...  65% 

- —  x.  20 

...  73 

...  447 

—  xiv.  7 

...  121% 

...  287 

—  xv.  2 

64% 

—  xvi.  21 

...  147 

...  58% 

—  xvii.  8-12  ... 

...  62% 

...  448 

—  xviii.  15-20... 

...  62% 

...  120% 

—  xviii.  4 

...  36% 

...  454 

—  xxi.  12,  13  ... 

...  232% 

—  xxiii.  1 

...  37% 

...  443 

—  xxv.  9 

...  20% 

...  103 

—  xxv.  11-14  ... 

...  85 

56% 

—  xxvi.  12 

...  454 

—  xxx.  12 

...  446 

...  214% 

—  xxxii.  8 

...  120% 

...  38% 

454 

...  45 

—  xxxiii.  2 

...  120% 

...  318% 

—  xxxiii.  4,  27 

...  446 

...  161 

Eccl.  i.  18,  14  ... 

...  454 

...  184% 

—  ii.  3,  17 

...  454 

24% 

—  ii.  15,  17  ... 

...  454 

...  195% 

—  iv.  1 . 

. . .  23277 

...  371 

—  iv.  8 . 

...  3277 

...  194% 

—  ii.  24 

...  3271 

...  287 

—  vii.  25 

...  98% 

...  318% 

—  viii.  6 

...  454 

...  318% 

—  x.  8 . 

2% 

...  184% 

—  xi.  1  ... 

...  447 

...  38% 

—  xi.  9  ... 

...  454 

...  195% 

—  xii.  9 

...  454 

...  313% 

—  xii.  12 

...  62% 

...  195% 

—  x.  8  ... 

62% 

5% 

—  xv.  1 

...  60% 

182% 

—  xvii.  9 

...  60% 

...  343% 

—  xxiv. 

...  61% 

...  318% 

—  xxviii.  24,  34 

59% 

...  179% 

—  xxxix.  24,  34 

...  59% 

...  195% 

—  xxxix.  2 

...  51% 

459 

Ephes.  i.  10 

. 221% 

...  194% 

—  iii.  8 

...  230% 

...  30% 

—  iii.  15 

. 214% 

...  221% 

—  iv.  10 

. 214% 

Index. 


**  f4  w  * 


Scripture  continued- 
E  plies.  iv.  26  ... 


Ex.  i.  5... 

—  i.  21 

—  ii.  1  ... 

—  iii.  1... 

—  iii.  2... 

—  iii.  15 

—  iv.  6... 


—  iv.  16,  20,  24 

—  v.  3  ... 

—  vi.  12 

—  vi  15 

—  vi.  12,  20 

—  vi.  30 

—  ix.  20 

—  xii.  8 

—  xii.  15-18 

—  xii.  40 

—  xii.  46 

—  xiii.  9 

—  xiii.  16 

—  xiii.  18 

—  xiv.  3 

—  xv.  3 

—  xv.  11 

—  xv.  17 

—  xvii.  16 

—  xix.  13 

—  xix.  26 

—  xx.  19-21 

—  xx.  22 

—  xxi.  1 

—  xxi.  5 

—  xxi.  15 

—  xxii.  2 

—  xxii.  9 

—  xxiii.  23 

—  xxiv.  1 

—  xxiv.  6 

—  xxiv.  10,  1' 

—  xxiv.  12 

—  xxv.  8 

—  xxvi. 

—  xxxii.  8 

—  xxxii.  9 


232ft 

199 

199% 

122ft 

454 
346  ft 
447 

122ft 

454 

454 

454 

122ft 

122ft 

454 

122ft 

121ft 

198ft 

454 

121 

454 

181ft 

.  87 
.  454 
.  454 
53ft 
.  454 
.  101 
.  150 
.  454 
.  454 
.  20 
.  299ft 
.  20 
.  84 

.  21 
.  150 
.  144ft 
,.  454 
..  102 
..  447 
..  448 
..  454 
..  428 
..  454 
..  276ft 
..  100 
..  122ft 

454 


—  xxxii.  22 

•  •  • 

...  454 

—  xxxiv.  27  ... 

... 

...  62ft 

Ez,-k.  xii.  25,  26 

...  49  ft 

—  xviii.  30 

•  •  • 

...  166  ft 

—  xx.  25 

•  •  • 

...  49ft 

—  xx.  25 

... 

...  -50ft 

404 


Ezek.  xxxiii. 

7 

...  29 7 

—  xxxvi.  25 

•  •  •  •  •  * 

...  295ft 

Ezra  iii.  4 

•  •  •  •  »  » 

...  54ft 

—  vii.  6,  25  ; 

11;  10 

...  52  ft 

53ft 

—  vii.  10 

•  •  •  •  •  ► 

...  51ft 

—  ix.  10 

•  •  •  •  •  • 

...  54ft 

—  ix.  9,  19,  27,  28,  34 

...  58  ft 

i 

l 

pi 

•<r 

V. 

oo 

•  •  •  •  •  • 

...  51ft 

Gal.  i.  6 

...  369 

—  i.  8  ... 

•  •  •  •  •  * 

...  351ft 

—  i.  18 ... 

... 

5  ft 

221ft 

—  iii.  1... 

...  230ft 

—  iv.  5 

...  ... 

...  221ft 

—  iv.  21 

•  •  «  -  •  • 

...  195ft 

-  iv.  22 

...  .  .  . 

...  337ft 

—  iv.  22 

•  •  •  •  •  • 

...  345ft 

—  iv.  24 

...  ... 

...  230ft 

—  iv.  24 

... 

...  300ft 

—  v.  15 

. 

...  221  ft 

—  vi.  2 

... 

...  230ft 

Gen.  i.  1 

...  35 

—  i.  2 

...  ... 

...  125ft 

—  i.  9 

...  ... 

...  295ft 

—  i.  26- 

...  ... 

;..  380 

—  i.  26 

...  ... 

c.  61ft 

—  i.  31 

...  • •  • 

••i;.  37 ft 

—  i.  31 

...  .  .  . 

...  447 

—  ii.  2 

...  ... 

V..'  170ft 

—  ii.  2 

...  454 

• —  ii.  3 

...  ... 

...  101 

—  ii.  4,  5 

4  •  •  •  •  • 

...  125ft 

—  iii.  15 

...  ... 

...  345 

—  iii.  15 

...  ... 

...  386 

—  iii.  21 

.  .  •  •  •  • 

...  344ft 

• —  iv.  4 

•  •  •  •  •  • 

...  454 

—  iv.  10-23 

...  .  .  , 

...'  448 

—  iv.  26 

...  105 

—  viii.  1 

...  275ft 

—  ix.  4 

...  ... 

...  454 

—  ix.  13 

...  .  .  . 

...  251ft 

—  xi.  1 

...  ... 

.  .  445 

—  xi.  28 

...  *  .  . 

...  224ft 

—  xiii.  6 

...  ... 

...  288ft 

—  xv.  9 

•  •  •  •  •  • 

...  201 

—  xv.  10 

...  ... 

...  37ft 

—  xviii.  1 

.  .  .  ,  ... 

...  277ft 

—  xviii.  2 

•  •  •  •  •  ••• 

...  196 

—  xviii.  2 

...  .  .  .  . 

...  346ft 

—  xviii.  2 

...  ... 

...  446 

—  xviii.  6 

•  •  •  •  •  • 

...  23 

—  xviii.  9 

•  •  •  •  •  •  • 

...  75 

—  xviii.  30 

•  •  •  •  •  •  • 

...  454 

—  xix.  24 

...  •  •  • 

...  174 

N  N 


548 


Index. 


Scripture  continued-* 
Cten.  xix.  24  ... 

itt 

...  448 

—  xix.  33 

•  .  * 

75 

—  xxii.  8 

•  *  * 

...  186ft 

—  xxii.  13 

i  «  * 

...  454 

—  xxii.  11 

•  •  • 

...  23ft 

—  xxiv.  16 

•  *• » 

...  199 

—  xxv.  21 

...  99 

—  xxv.  23 

•  «  • 

...  446 

—  xxxiv.  2 

•  •  « 

...  21  ft 

'• —  xxx vii.  3 

.  •  « 

...  446 

—  xxxix.  7  ... 

.  .  « 

...  21 

—  xlii.  2,  22  ... 

... 

...  446 

—  xlv.  16 

... 

...  448 

- —  xlix.  10 

... 

...  173  n 

—  xlix.  11,  277  ft. 

,  .  . 

...  287 

—  xlix.  12 

. 

...  201  n 

Hab.  i.  1 

4  ft 

—  i.  2 

... 

...  38  ft 

—  ii.  11 

...  123 

—  iii.  2 

... 

...  124 

Heb.  ii.  9 

...  287 

—  ii.  13 

... 

...  337 ft 

—  ii.  15 

... 

...  21  n 

—  iv.  4 

.  . 

...  472 

—  iv.  6,  1,  12  ... 

... 

...  48ft 

—  vi.  6 

... 

5  ft 

—  ix.  1-7 

...  30??. 

—  x.  5 

...  218ft 

—  x.  38 

5ft 

—  xi.  1 3 

... 

...  344ft 

—  xi.  21 

... 

...  472 

—  xi.  37 

... 

...  318ft 

—  xii.  25,  26  ... 

•  4  1 

5ft 

Hos.  vi.  5 

.  .  1 

...  454 

—  vi.  9 

.  *  i 

...  49n 

—  viii.  1,  12  ... 

•  «  t 

...  48 

—  ix.  7 

.  .  1 

56ft 

—  ix.  9 

.  .  . 

...  49  ft 

—  x.  12 

... 

...  3ft 

Isa.  i.  17 

t  «  1 

...  172ft 

—  i.  18 

... 

...  166 

—  i.  22 

... 

...  49ft 

—  ii.  22 

.. 

...  105 

—  iii.  17 

...  122ft 

—  iv.  9 

...  346ft 

—  vi.  3 

..  346ft 

—  vii.  3 

♦  4  • 

...  454 

—  vii.  9 

...  184  ft 

—  vii.  14 

... 

...  173ft 

—  vii.  14 

... 

...  380 

—  viii.  14 

... 

...  66  ft 

—  viii.  20 

... 

...  29 

—  ix.  5 

•  •  • 

...  125ft 

—  ix.  6 

t  •  * 

...  121 

ripture  continued — - 
Isa.  ix.  6 

...  380 

—  ix.  7  . 

...  210 

—  x.  34  . 

...  68  ft 

- — •  xi.  1 

...  288 

—  xi.  7  . 

380 

...  186ft 

—  xiv.  3 

...  25 

—  xiv.  23 

...  218ft 

—  xvi.  1 

...  233 

—  xix.  2 

...  386 

- —  XX.  1 

...  445 

—  xxvi.  4 

...  77 

—  xxvi.  14 

.,  59ft 

—  xxviii.  7,  8  ... 

...  49ft 

• —  xxix.  3 

...  454 

—  xxx. 

...  445 

—  xxxiii.  7 

...  386 

—  xxxiii.  16  ... 

...  173 

—  xxxiii.  18 

...  20ft 

—  xxxv.  7,  8  ... 

...  303 

—  xxxviii.  11  ... 

...  120ft 

—  xl.  26  . 

...  125ft 

—  xliii.  13 

...  125ft 

—  xliv.  3 

...  287 

—  xlv.  18  . 

...  125  ft 

—  xlviii.  16 

...  346ft 

—  liii.  4  . 

...  25ft 

—  lvi.  2  . 

...  105 

—  lx.  1 

...  287 

—  lx.  17 

...  122 

—  lxi.  10 

...  254ft 

—  lxiii.  2 

...  181ft 

—  lxiii.  12 

48ft 

James  ii.  14 

...  343ft 

—  v.  14 

...  27  ft 

Jer.  i.  11 

...  288 

—  ii.  3  . 

...  35 

—  ii.  13  ... 

...  295ft 

—  iii.  4,  19  . 

...  166 

—  iii.  16 

...  49 

—  iv.  3 

3 

—  v.  13 

...  49 

—  vi.  13 

...  49 

—  viii.  10 

...  49 

—  vii.  21,  22  ... 

...  49 

—  vii.  22,  23  . 

...  49ft 

viii.  8 

...  48  ft 

—  ix.  13 

...  48  ft 

— -  x.  16 

...  32  ft 

—  xi.  19 

...  123 

—  xii.  10  . 

...  49 

—  XV.  1 

...  48ft 

—  xvii.  9 

...  123ft 

—  xvii.  9 

...  123 

—  xvii.  12 

...  36ft 

—  xviii.  15 

...  120  ft 

Index. 

547 

a'ipture  continued — 

Scripture  continued — 

Jer.  xxiii.  5 

•  •  • 

... 

...  98 

1  John  v.  7 

...  34977 

—  xxiii.  22 

...  49 

—  xxiii.  28 

...  307 

Jonah  ii.  1 

...  17677 

—  xxiii.  29 

... 

... 

...  20 

- —  iii.  iv. 

...  125 

—  xxiii.  29 

...  73 

—  xxv.  26 

...  103 

Joshua  ii.  15 

...  210 

—  xxvi.  1 

...  34 

—  ii.  18 

...  18177 

—  xxxi.  31 

...  30  n 

—  xiii.  22 

...  454 

—  xxxi.  37 

... 

... 

5  9n 

—  xxiv.  30 

...  454 

Job  i.  14 

...  297 n 

Judges  v.  9 

6O77 

—  xix.  26,  27 

...  120w 

—  vi.  37 

...  17677 

—  xxv.  5 

... 

...  I97n 

—  xiii.  5 

2077 

—  xxix.  18 

... 

... 

...  166?i 

—  xiv.  3 

...  21/7 

—  xxxi.  10 

... 

...  122ti 

—  xxxv.  14 

... 

...  120ti 

1  Kings  vi.  8  ... 

...»  454 

—  xlii.  14 

... 

... 

...  125ti 

—  viii.  1-4 

...  5277 

Joel  i.  1 

...  344 

2  Kings  xxii.  8-15 

...  48 

—  ii.  13 

... 

... 

...  348 

—  xxiii.  1-3 

...  48 

John  i.  3 

...  14277. 

Lev.  xi.  6 

...  12177- 

—  i.  3 

38?! 

—  xii.  17 

...  12077 

—  i.  3 

...  171 

—  xiv.  25 

...  20?7 

—  i.  3 

...  344ti 

—  xvi.  3 

...  446 

—  i.  9 

...  26277 

—  xviii.  2 

...  12277 

—  i.  12 

...  347 n 

—  xviii.  6 

...  2377 

—  i.  20 

...  197ti 

■ —  xviii.  30 

62?i 

—  i.  51 

...  346ti 

—  xix.  19 

...  454 

—  ii.  19,  20 

...  32077, 

—  xx.  17  . 

...  445 

—  iii.  5... 

...  172ti 

—  xxiv.  7 

...  454 

—  iv.  14 

...  2957?. 

—  xxv.  29,  30  ... 

64ti 

—  v.  2  ... 

...  26/7 

—  xxvi.  44 

...  5477 

—  v.  2  ... 

...  31877. 

—  v.  31,  32 

...  346ti 

Luke  ii.  14 

...  31377 

—  v.  39... 

...  339ti 

—  ii.  35 

...  31877 

—  v.  39... 

...  449tt. 

—  iii.  23  . 

5677 

—  v.  39,  40 

. . .  22rt 

—  iv.  24  . 

5677 

—  v.  39,  40 

...  107 

- —  iv.  41 

...  34377 

—  vi.  39 

...  297t 

—  vii.  38  . 

...  287 

—  vii.  38 

...  295tt. 

■ —  ix.  28 

...  285?7 

—  vii.  52 

5677. 

—  ix.  51-56  . 

...  17 

—  viii.  1 

...  349ti 

3977 

—  viii.  1-11 

...  39ti 

—  xi.  4... 

...  34777 

—  x.  29... 

...  31377 

—  xi.  52  .i. 

...  5977 

—  x.  30... 

...  34677 

—  xiii.  11 

...  3971 

—  xii.  39 

...  22177 

—  xx.  34,  38  ... 

...  435 

—  xiii.  5 

...  287 

—  xxii.  36 

...  320ti 

—  xvi.  13 

...  16177 

—  xxiii. 

56ti 

—  xviii.  1 

... 

...  31377 

—  xxiii. 

...  12477 

—  xviii.  20 

...  34377 

—  xviii.  28 

... 

...  31377 

Mai.  i.  1 

...  5377 

—  xix.  37 

...  472 

—  ii.  1-10  . 

4977 

—  xx.  16 

... 

... 

...  5177 

—  iv.4  ... 

4877 

1  John  ii.  14 

...  34977 

Mark  i.  2 

...  23071 

—  v.  7,  20 

...  31877 

—  i.  34 . 

...  34377 

—  v.  7  ... 

•  •  * 

•  •  • 

...  32077 

—  ii.  18-28  . 

...  39f^ 

N  N 


9 


548 


Index . 


Scripture  continued — 
Mark  ii.  25 
—  iv.  34 


vii.  1-4 

—  vii.  2-23 

—  vii.  13 

—  vii.  19 

—  ix.  11 

—  x.  2-12 

—  x.  49 

—  x.  51 

—  xii.  32-34  .. 

—  xii.  24,  27  .. 


230  n 
24  n 
184% 
88 
39  n 
449 
67  n 
88 
39  n 
313% 
51% 
50% 
435 


Scripture  continued  — 
Matt.  xix.  20  ... 

—  xxi.  4 

—  xxii.  14 

—  xxii.  14 

—  xxii.  29,  32.. 

—  xxiii.  2 

—  xxiii.  7,  8  ... 

—  xxiv.  36 

—  xxiv.  37 

—  xxvi.  28 

—  xxvii.  9 

—  xxvii.  28 


..  260% 
..  458 
..  168% 
..  171% 
..  435 
..  59% 

..  51% 

..  318% 
..  187% 
..  30% 

..  345% 
349% 
...  166% 


Matt.  i.  19 

—  i.  19... 

—  i.  22  ... 

—  i.  23... 

—  ii.  5  ... 

—  ii.  15 

—  ii.  23 

—  ii.  23 

—  iii.  15 

—  iii.  25 

—  iv.  4 

—  iv.  18-24 

—  v.  15 

—  v.  16 

—  v.  16 

—  v.  24,  43 

—  vi.  1 

—  vi.  13 

—  vi.  26,  27 

—  vi.  31 
— -  viii.  17 

—  viii.  28 

—  ix.  13 

—  ix.  18-26 

—  x.  27 

—  x.  27 

—  x.  29 

—  xi.  11 

—  xii.  4 

—  xii.  5 

—  xii.  19 

—  xiii.  7 

—  xiii.  35 

—  xiii.  57 

—  xv.  3-6 

—  xv.  3 

—  xv.  6 

—  xv.  6 
* —  xv.  9 

—  xvi.  18 

—  xvi.  19 

—  xyii.  1 
* —  xix.  8 

—  xix.  12 


...  279% 

...  318% 

...  380 
...  343% 

...  318% 

...  472 
...  98 

...  472 
...  380 
...  279% 

...  279% 

...  204% 

...  297 
...  260 
...  318% 

...  39  n 

...  313% 
...  380 
...  209% 
...  204?^ 
...  472 
...  204% 
...  168% 
...  297% 
...  184% 
...  24% 

...  19% 

...  346% 
...  12% 
...  19% 

...  230% 
3% 

...  458 
...  56% 
...  45 
...  107 
...  107 
...  449 
...  107 
...  346% 
...  62% 
...  285% 
...  404 
...  318% 


Micah  i.  9 

—  iii.  5... 

—  vi.  6-9 


...  124 
...  122% 
...  49% 


Nehem.  viii.  4,  9  ;  7,  8 

—  x.  1-27  . 

—  xiii.  24  . 


52% 

57% 

52% 


Num.  vi.  5 

—  xii.  8 

—  xii.  14 

—  xiv.  14 

—  xiv.  19 

—  xv.  39 

—  xvi.  15 

—  xvii.  8 

—  xx.  11 

—  xxiii.  19 

—  xxvi.  9 

—  xxxii.  12 

Saint  Paul 


...  99 

...  120% 
...  19% 

...  120% 
...  100 
...  51% 

...  121% 
...  288 
...  288 
...  456 
...  441 
...  454 


. 308 

312,  313,  320 

. 314 

. 309 


his  Epistles 
Peter 


1  Pet.  ii.  24 

—  ii.  24... 

—  iii.  19 


...  260% 
...  318% 
...  346% 


2  Pet.  ... 
Phil.  ii.  6 

Prov.  vi.  26 

—  viii.  22 

—  ix.  1,  2 

—  xii.  20 

—  xiii.  11 

—  xviii.  4 

—  xxiv.  20 

—  xxix.  21 


...  349% 


...  318% 


...  21 
...  36% 

...  295% 
...  197 
...  288% 
...  295% 
...  59% 

...  104 


Scripture  continued — 
Rs.  i.  1... 

—  ii.  12 

—  xv.  10 

—  xvi.  2 

■ —  xvii.  15 

—  xix.  4 

—  xix.  4 

—  xxi.  2 

—  xxi.  9-12  ... 

—  xxii.  12 

—  xxii.  18 

—  xxiii.  5 

—  xxxiii.  27  ... 

—  xlv.  1 

—  xlv.  3 

—  xlvii.  10 

—  li.  16 
—  Ixv.  12 

—  lxviii.  21 

—  lxix.  3 

—  lxxiv.  13 

—  lxxviii.  2 

—  lxxviii.  2  ... 

—  lxxix.  2 

—  lxxx.  11 

—  lxxxvi.  4 

—  lxxxvii.  4  ... 

—  lxxxviii.  2  ... 

—  xc.  1 

—  xc.  4 

—  xc.  12 

—  xcii.  12 

—  xcvi.  10 

—  ciii.  10,  11  .  . 

—  cvi.  7 

—  cx.  3 

—  cxviii. 

—  cxix.  26 

—  cxix.  105  ... 

—  cxix.  130  ... 

—  cxxvii. 

—  cxxxvi. 

—  cxli.  5 

—  cxlviii.  4 

—  clxv.  16 

Rev.  xiii.  18 

—  xvi.  16 

—  xvii.  15 

Rom.  i.  2 

—  i.  4 

—  ii.  8 

—  ii.  17 

—  iii.  25 

—  iii.  25 

—  v.  12 


Index , 

549 

Scripture  continued — 

.  177  n 

Rom.  v.  14 

.  353/1 

..  229 

—  v.  16 

.  343/1 

,.  380 

xi.  17 

...  343/i 

,.  267 n 

—  xi.  32 

.  343/1 

120/1 

.  20871 

Ruth  iv.  1,  2  ... 

. 454 

.  288 

.  102 

1  Sam.  i.  2 

. 165 

..  267 

—  i.  11 

.  20/i 

..  297 n 

—  i.  14 

.  12271 

.  300/i 

—  ii.  8 

. 297 

..  18171 

—  ii.  16 

. 454 

..  120?i 

—  iii.  15 

571 

..  117/1 

- —  v.  4,  5,  10  ... 

. 454 

455 

—  vi.  2 

. 447 

..  ll/i 

—  viii.  19 

...  454 

..  49/i 

* —  ix.  25 

. 454 

295/1 

—  x.  19 

. 454 

..  99 

—  xiv.  45 

. 454 

101 

—  xv.  12 

. 122?i 

..  287 

* —  xv.  22 

...  ...  49/i 

..  297 

—  xv.  32 

. 454 

..  184/1 

—  xvi.  12 

. 454 

..  24/i 

—  xvi.  20 

. 454 

..  ll/i 

—  xvi.  23 

...  122/1 

..  52/i 

—  xvii.  8 

. 454 

..  166/1 

- —  xvii.  39*43  ... 

. 454 

..  454 

■ —  xix.  9 

...  122/t 

..  459 

* —  xix.  13-16  ... 

. 454 

..  120/1 

—  xx.  30 

. 454 

..  170/1 

—  xxi  13 

. 454 

..  166/1 

—  xxiv.  3 

. 122/1 

..  124 

■ —  xxvi.  5 

. 454 

..  123 

—  xxxi.  3 

. 454 

..  166/1 

..  454 

2  Sam.  xiv.  5  ... 

. 199/1 

..  125/i 

..  348 n 

2Thess.  ii.  7  ... 

.  98  n 

..  12/i 

..  351/1 

1  Tim.  i.  6 

.  290/1 

..  71/i 

294/i 

..  229 

310/1 

..  238/1 

-  i.  7 

. 318/1 

..  239/1 

—  i.  8 

. 195/i 

..  295/i 

—  i.  17 

. 318/t 

...  102 

—  i.  18 

. 318n 

—  ii.  4 

.  262/i 

..  100 

—  ii.  15 

. 251/i 

..  102 

—  ii.  21 

. 318/i 

..  295?i 

—  iv.  4 

. 357 

—  v.  14 

. 179/t 

...  269/i 

- —  v.  18 

. 318/i 

..  318/i 

—  v.  20 

. 435 

..  363/t 

—  vi.  20 

. 245 

...  343/1 

...  353/1 

2  Tim.  i.  18  ... 

. 174/i 

...  386 

—  ii.  16 

. 485 

...  318/i 

—  iii.  2 

. 318/i 

550 


Index. 


Scripture  continued — 
Titus  i.  7 

—  i.  14 

—  iv.  4 


...  31871 
...  47 
...  357 


Zech.  iii.  8 
—  x.  9 
• —  xi.  7 


...  98 

...  12171 
...  297 


Zeph.  iii.  4 
—  iii.  3,  4 


48ii 
49  n 


Apocryphal  References — 

Baruch  ii.  27-34  ;  iii.  37 ;  iv. 

1  and  'passim,  4  ...  ...  60 n 

—  iv.  1  ...  ...  •••  61ti 


1  Esdras  viii.  9  ;  xiv.  21-27  ...  54 n 

2  Esdras  xiv.  21-45  ...  ...  52 n 

3  Esdras  viii.  5  ...  ...  120 n 

—  ix.  39  .  60 n 

4  Esdras  viii.  20  ;  x.  57-59  ...  53 n 


1  Mace.  i.  56-58  ;  ii.  27  ;  iii.  21  ; 


vi.  59 

55n 

—  vi.  23 

60n 

2  Mace.  i.  8,  10 

66n 

—  i.  10  . 

...  128 

—  i.  16  . 

...  160?i 

—  vii.  2,  23,  30,  37  ... 

55n 

—  vii.  12 

58?i 

4  Macc. 

...  13671 

Tobit  i.  6 

60)i 

—  ix.  16 

...  65  n 

Wisd.  i.  4 

...  12671 

—  vii.  22-14  . 

...  126ti 

—  viii.  19  . 

...  126ti 

—  viii.  20 

...  12671 

—  xi.  17  . 

...  12671 

—  xviii.  4 

60n 

• —  xviii.  24 

...  23n 

—  xviii.  24 

...  126ti 

Scripture,  Analogy  of,” 
so-called,  26 

a  nominally 

!  Scripture,  perspicuity 
called,  26,  27  n. 

of,”  the  so- 

Seething  a  kid  in  its  mother’s  milk, 
Rabbinical  view  of,  88  n. 

Sender,  marks  an  epoch  in  German 
exegetic  study,  402  ;  nature  and 
influence  of  his  work,  403 
Septuagint,  references  to  the,  3  n.,  5 
n.  ;  theological  bias  in  the  trans¬ 
lators  of,  5  ;  its  origin,  and  influence 
on  the  Jews  and  on  Christianity, 


116  ;  list  of  authors  and  works 
treating  of  the,  116,  117  ns.  ;  fables 
regarding  its  origin,  117  ;  use  made 
of  it  by  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament,  117  ;  defects  of  trans¬ 
lations,  117  ;  dislike  of  the  Jews  for 
the,  118  ;  opposition  of  the  Rabbis, 
to  the,  118,  119  ;  their  methods  of 
interpretation  for  giving  their  own 
sense  to  the,  118,  119  ;  faults  of  the, 
119  and  ns.  ;  traces  of  Jewish  legen¬ 
dary  lore  found  in  the,  120  and  ns.  ; 
instances  of  mistranslations  and 
perversions,  120  ct  seq.  ;  on  traces  ot 
Alexandrian  philosophy  in  the,.  121 
n.  ;  the  translators  of  the,  afraid  of 
the  word  “ass,”  121  and  n.  ;  im¬ 
mense  effect  produced  by  the  trans¬ 
lation,  122  ;  St.  Augustine’s  venera¬ 
tion  for  the,  125  ;  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia  relies  almost  exclusively 
on  the,  125  ;  it  shows  no  tendency 
to  the  method  of  allegory,  126  ;  tie 
object  of  Aristeas’s  letter  the  glori¬ 
fication  of  the,  128  ;  the  only  Bible 
used  by  the  Fathers  was  the,  165  ; 
Jerome’s  opinion  of  the,  224  ;  Augus¬ 
tine  believes  in  the  inspiration  of 
the,  235  n.  ;  Philo’s  use  of,  452  ; 
account  of  the,  453,  455 
Septuagint  of  the  Greek  Church  teems 
with  errors,  27  n. 

Servetus,  235  ;  on  the  burning  of,  351 
and  77/.  ;  the  Abbe  Glaire’s  remark 
on,  360  n.  ;  references  to,  351  and 
n.,  360  n. 

Severianus,  115  71.,  219  n. 

Shabbath,  extract  from,  on  Ezekiel, 
49  n.  ;  declares  the  most  important 
law  the  one  about  fringes,  50 
Shammai,  Rabbi,  the  rival  of  Hillel, 
account  of,  67 

Shekhinah,  Aqiba  rebuked  for  ap¬ 
pearing  to  render  the,  profane,  72 
and  n. 

Shemaiah,  writer  of  one  of  the  lost 
sacred  books,  6 

Sic  ct  Non  of  Abelard,  account  of  the, 
468 

Sigismund,  the  Emperor,  310 
Simeon  ben  Shetacli,  19  n. 

Simon  the  Just,  the  last  member  of  the 
Great  Synagogue,  57  n.  ;  the  three 
things  he  asserts  the  world  stands 
on,  61 

Siphra,  18  n.y  62  n. 

Sinnium,  212 

Sixtus  Senensis,  on  the  five  methods 
of  the  Schoolmen,  291  n. 


Index. 


5  5 1 


Slavery  and  the  Bible,  Bishop  Hopkins 
of  Vermont  on,  436  n. 

Society  of  Jesus,  307 
Socrates,  285  n. 

Somerset,  the  Protector,  351 
Solomon  Levita,  see  Paulus  of  Burgos 
Song  of  Solomon,  various  hypotheses 
regarding  the,  32  ;  list  and  views  of 
various  expositors  of,  32  n. ;  a  favour¬ 
ite  field  for  mystical  interpretation 
with  the  Tanaim,  and  others, .  75  ; 
influence  of  on  mediaeval  mysticism 
and  exegesis,  256,  257  and  ns. 
Sorbonne,  Casaubon’s  remark  on  the 
disputes  of  the,  291  n. 

Speculative  thought,  the  difficulty  of 
reconciling  the  divine  dogmas  with 
the  discoveries  of,  133,  134  and  ns.  ; 
to  meet  this,  interpreters  driven  to 
find  mystical  meanings  in  the  Scrip¬ 
tures,  the  Vedas,  and  the  Koran, 
133,  134 

Speuer,  Philip  James,  influence  of  his 
works  in  reviving  a  healthy  system 
of  exegesis  in  the  17th  century,  380  ; 
he  revives  the  gift  of  preaching,  381  ; 
his  followers,  and  their  work,  381 
Spinoza,  17  ;  nature  and  influence  of 
his  philosophy,  383  ;  his  views  on 
interpretation,  384  n.  ;  estimate  of 
him  by  various  writers,  384  and  n.  , 
effects  of  his  labours,  307 
Stanley,  Dean,  on  Aristobulus,  131  ;  his 
work  for  the  Church,  423 
Stephens,  Robert,  on  the  ignorance  of 
the  Kew  Testament  among  the  pre- 
Reformation  clergy,  321 
Stercorianists,  the  dispute  with  those 
who  were  called,  293 
Stoics,  views  of  the,  126,  135,  136  ; 
best  specimens  of  the  method  of  the, 
to  be  found  in  the  Homeric  Allego¬ 
ries,  136  ;  references  to,  142,  144  n. 
Strauss’s  Life  of  Jesus,  its  influence  on 
the  spread  of  unbelief,  413,  417  ; 
Eacordaire  on,  415 

Symbols,  or  Symbololatry,  the  age  of, 

359,  360  ,  ,  _ 

Synagogue,  the  Great,  founded  by  Ezra, 

‘  57  and  n.  ;  its  last  member,  57  n. 
gyrus,  Ephraem,  of  the  School  of 
'  Edessa,  illustration  of  the  allegorical 
style  of,  209 

T. 

Tacitus,  17,  121  n.,  166  n. 

Talmud,  of  little  value  as  an  authority 
in  exegesis,  10  and  n.  ,  the  edifice  of 


the,  rests  on  the  rules  of  Hillel,  IS, 

22  ;  its  interpretation  of  the  first 
verse  of  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis, 

34  ;  nature  of  the  narratives  with 
which  it  abounds,  57  ;  extract  from 
regarding  a  prayer  of  Ezras,  57; 
assertion  of  the,  regarding  the  three 
crowns,  61  ;  on  Hillel’s  fiction  of 
“the  Prosbol,”  64;  and  on  the 
cleanness  of  creeping  things,  <34  ; 
abounds  in  references  to  Aqiba, 
72  n.  ;  the  Jerusalem  Talmud,  81 
and  n.  ;  the  Babylonian,  82  and  n.  ; 
the,  is  finally  closed  by  Rabbi na 
Abina,  82  ;  it  is  more  used  by  the 
Jews  than  the  Bible ,  82  ;  main  con¬ 
tents  of  the,  82  ;  different  editions 
of  the,  82  n.  ;  the  Mishna  and  the 
Gemara  make  up  the,  91  ;  various 
terms  applied  to  the,  91  ;  account  of 
the  Babylonian,  91  ;  influence  of,  and 
nature  of  its  contents,  91^  et  seq.  ; 
four  schools  of  Talmudists,  92  n.  , 
the  language  of  the,  92  n.  ;  trans¬ 
lations  of  the,  92  n.  ;  varied  and 
extraordinary  nature  of  the  contents 
of  the,  91  et  seq.  ;  estimates  of,  by 
various  authors,  93  n.  ;  injury  d^ne 
by  the,  to  the  living  Oracles  of  God, 
94  ;  flowers  of  the,  artificial  ones,  106  ; 
influence  of  Greek  literature  on  the, 
114  and  n.  ;  the  exegetic  principles 
of  Philo  differ  in  five  respects  from 
those  of  the,  150  n.  ;  persecution  of 
the,  by  Emperors  and  Popes,  315, 
316  n.  ;  Erasmus  on  the,  315  n. 
Talmudic  cryptographs,  451 
Talmudism,  the  seven  rules  of  Hillel 
the  foundation  of,  22 
Tanaites,  the  greatest  of  the,  71 ;  ety¬ 
mology  of  the  word,  7 1  n.  ,  meaning 
of  “  nought”  in  the  system  of  the, 


74  ;  end  of  the,  80 

'argum,  the,  and  the  Scribes,  60  n.  , 
derivation  of  the  word,  and  list  of 
the  chief  Targums,  442 
’arplion,  Rabbi,  his  remark  to  Aqiba, 

71 

kauler  on  mysticism,  258  and  n. 
kiylor,  Isaac,  on  the  Roman  Pontiffs 
appealing  to  Scripture  to  justify 
their  evil  deeds,  41  n. 
ray  lor,  Jeremy,  on  the  hearing  and 
reading  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  43  , 
on  allegorising,  353  n.  on  Chris¬ 
tianity  as  a  practical  religion,  395 
remoornh,  explanation  of  the  Rabbini¬ 
cal  principle  of,  102  ;  various  appli¬ 
cations  of,  103 


Index. 


do2 

Temple,  at  the  destruction  of  the, 
prophecy  is  given  to  the  wise,  51  n.  ; 
antique  instruments  in  the,  109 
Tertullian,  estimate  of,  and  of  his 
writings,  177-180  ;  Professor  Mau¬ 
rice’s  opinion  of,  179  n.,  180  n. 
Testament,  the  word  a  mistranslation 
and  a  mistake,  30  ;  various  render¬ 
ings  of,  30  7i.  ;  difference  betwixt  the 
Old  and  the  New,  350  and  77. 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  his  partiality 
for  the  Septuagint,  125  ;  the  ablest 
representative  of  the  School  of  Anti¬ 
och,  213  ;  the  merits  and  defects  of 
his  style  of  exegesis,  213,  214  ;  his 
faults,  214  ;  instances  of  his  errone¬ 
ous  renderings  of  Scripture,  213,  214 
and  ns.  ;  original  nature  of  his  exe¬ 
gesis,  215  ;  he  makes  a  bold  stand 
against  Origenising  allegory,  216  ; 
difference  between  the  system  of  the 
Syrian  school  and  that  of  Origen, 
216  ;  his  independent  mode  of  deal¬ 
ing  with  Scripture,  216  ;  his  opinion 
of  certain  so-called  Messianic  Psalms, 
216  ;  his  views  on  inspiration,  217  ; 
and  on  prophecy,  217,  218;  list  of 
his  predecessors  and  successors, 
219  71.  ;  authorities  on  his  writings, 
219  7i.  ;  his  influence  in  the  "Western 
Church  destroyed  by  the  charge  of 
Nestorianism,  219  ;  his  chief  influ¬ 
ence  confined  to  the  Church  of  the 
Nestorians,  240 

Theodoret,  of  the  School  of  Antioch, 
perpetuates  the  views  of  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia,  219  ;  influence  of  his 
allegorical  method  confined  to  the 
Church  of  the  Nestorians,  240 
Theologians,  Bacon  on  English,  353  n.  ; 
the  leading  English,  during  the  post- 
Reformation  period,  376 
Theology,  state  of,  in  the  12th  century, 
310  ;  John  of  Salisbury’s  and  Roger 
Bacon’s  opinion  of,  310  ;  Camera  - 
rius’s  view  of,  310  n. ;  three  things 
which  Luther  said  taught,  348  n.  ; 
the  age  of  huge  books  of,  361  ;  and 
of  dogmatism  in,  362 
Theophilus  of  Antioch,  and  his  writings, 
estimate  of,  171  and  n. 

Theory,  discrepancy  between  nominal, 

’  and  actual  practice,  230  n. 

Thierry,  W.de  St.,  on  Sic  et  Non,  261  n. 
Tholuck  on  Thomas  Aquinas,  269  n.  ; 
on  the  view  of  the  ancient  Church  as 
to  the  language  of  Scripture,  294  n.  ; 
influence  of  his  work  on  the  exegesis 
of  his  time,  419 


Threefold  sense  of  Scripture,  views  of 
the  Schoolmen  on  the,  294  et  seq.  and 
ns. 

Tiberias,  disputes  of  the  Rabbis  in  the 
school  of,  85,  86 
Tiberius,  273 

Tiberius  Alexander,  Procurator,  138 
Tichonius,  the  seven  rules  of,  as  to 
Scriptural  interpretation,  24-26  ;  ap¬ 
proval  of,  by  Augustine,  Cassiodorus, 
and  Isidore  of  Seville,  26  and  n.  ; 
reference  to,  276,  279  n. 

Titus,  70 
Tobit,  226 

Tosefta  Sanhedrin,  18  n. 

Tostatus,  his  work  as  a  commentator, 
279 

Toulouse,  Count  of,  advice  of  Innocent 
III.  as  to  dealing  with,  40 
Tradition,  Oral,  Ezra  the  founder  of, 
54-56  ;  good  and  evil  largely  mixed 
in  the,  56,  57 

Translators,  theological  bias  and  errors 
of,  5  and  n. 

Trent,  Council  of,  307  ;  and  exegesis 
360 ;  the  Reformed  and  Lutheran 
Churches  reject  the  three  principles 
of,  370  n. 

Trinity,  Reuchlin  endeavours  to  prove 
the,  from  Genesis  i.  1,  35 
Tunstall,  his  enmity  to  Tyndale’s  trans¬ 
lation  of  the  Scriptures,  17 
Turretin,  his  protest  against  the  power 
of  “an  inner  light”  in  interpreting 
Scripture,  379  n. 

Tyndale  on  the  allegorical  method  of 
exegesis,  299,  300 

Tyre,  incident  in  the  siege  of,  by 
Alexander,  8 

U. 

Ueberweg  on  allegorical  interpreta¬ 
tion,  198  n. 

Universals,  controversy  between  An¬ 
selm  and  Roscelin  on,  253 
Universities,  Dutch,  and  divines,  their 
influence  on  the  exegesis  of  the  16th 
and  17th  centuries,  379  and  n. 

Urban  V.,  Pope,  264  n. 


Y. 

Valla,  Lorenzo,  influence  of  his 
labours  in  contributing  to  the  Re¬ 
formation,  312  ;  remarks  on  his 
works,  313  and  ns. 


Index. 


553 


Van  Heusden  on  Plato,  282 
Vavyikra  Rabba,  31  n.,  63  n.,  86  n. 
Vedas,  expositors  early  needed  to  ex¬ 
plain  the,  47  ;  the  Brahmins  driven 
to  find  a  mystical  meaning  for  the, 
133 

Ventura  on  Thomas  Aquinas,  269  n. 
Vespasian,  68  n. 

Viret,  344  n. 

Virgil,  247  n.,  296  n. 

Virginity,  Jerome  on,  227,  228,  25/ 
Voltaire,  17,  397,  400.  . 

Vulgate,  theological  bias  m  the  transla- 
tors  of  the,  5  ;  reference  to  the,  7  n. ; 
quotations  from,  24  and  n.,  teems 
with  errors,  27  n.  ;  Jerome’s  transla¬ 
tion  of  the,  223,  229 

W. 

Walafrid  Strabo,  and  Jhis  G1  ossa 
Ovdinaria,  account  of,  251,  252  and 

Wart  burg,  legend  of  Luther  at  the,.  5 
Waterland  on  mystic  meanings,  353  n. 
Weill  on  the  new  exegesis,  60  it.  . 
Werenfels,  famous  epigram  of,  m 
reference  to  interpretation,  .30  . 

Wesley,  justifies  his  belief  in  witch¬ 
craft  by  the  Bible,  40  it. 

Wessel,  John,  279  ;  identity  of  thought 
between  Luther  and,  312 
Westcott,  Canon,  his  comment  on 
John  v.  36-40,  10  it.  ;  his  remark,  on 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria’s  criticism 
on  the  Revelation,  207  n. ;  on  Chrys¬ 
ostom,  220  it. 

Wetstein,  John  James,  influence  ot,  on 
the  theology  and  exegesis  ot  the 
17th  century,  391  ;  value  ot  his 
works,  and  his  system  of  interpreta¬ 
tion,  391  . 

Whitaker,  on  the  three  spiritual  senses 

of  Scripture,  300 
Whittier,  4  it. 

Wiclif,  heresy  to  possess  the  Bible  ot, 
16  ;  on  mediaeval  exegesis,  278,  2<9 

Wife,  Hillel  and  Aqiba  on  divorcing  a, 
77  it 


William  of  Conches  reckons  the  Vener¬ 
able  Bede  among  the  Fathers,  249  it. 
William  of  Occam,  the  champion  of 
Nominalism,  281  ;  his  work  and  its 
results,  281,  282  ;  his  character,  301 
Wills,  Jews  ignorant  of,  till  the  time  of 
the  Romans,  30  it. 

Winer,  his  Hellenistic  grammar,  419 
Wisdom,  the  Book  of,  effect  of  .Greek 
influence  on  the  writer  of.  126  ;  de¬ 
rives  his  leading  ideas  from  Plato 
and  the  Stoics,  126 

Wise,  the,  greater  than  the  prophets, 

51  it.  ;  they  are  called  priests,  52  it. 
Witchcraft,  Scripture  cited  as  the 
authority  for  the  believers  in,  40 

and  it.  . 

Witches,  the  burning  of,  justified  by  a 
text  in  Leviticus.  40  and  it. 

Wogue,  references  to  his  Eistoire  do  la 
Bible ,  10,  11  ns. 

Wolfenbuttel  fragment,  effects  ot  the 
publication  of  the,  on  theology,  400 
Word  of  God,  Luther’s  view  of  what 
constituted  the,  339  ;  notin  Scripture 
alone,  340 

Words  and  letters,  Rabbinical  belie! 
in  certain  mystical  or  supernatural 
powers  in,  97  et  seq.  ;  and  in  new 
meanings  on  altering  them  by  trans¬ 
position,  104 

Wordsworth,  Bishop,  on  the  importance 
of  the  true  sense  of  Scripture  being 
made  known,  38 

World,  the,  stands  on  three  things,  61 

Y. 

Yertjshalmi,  nature  of  the,  82  n. 

Yods,  the  two,  Rabbinical  explanation 
of,  75,  76  and  n. 

Z. 

Zinzendorf,  Count,  influence  of,  and 
of  his  Moravian  brotherhoods  on  the 
practical  Christianity  ot  the  17th 
century,  389,  390 

Zwingli,  his  works  and  their  influence 
on  the  Reformation,  341 


THE  END 


Richard  Cray  «fe  Sons, 

BREAD  STREET  HILL,  LONDON, 

Bungay,  SuJJolk . 


WORKS  BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR. 

SERMONS  AND  ADDRESSES  DELIVERED  IN 

AMERICA.  With  an  Introduction  by  Phillips  Brooks,  D.D.  Crown 
8 vo.  7  s.  Gd. 

MERCY  AND  JUDGMENT.  A  Few  Last  Words  on 

Christian  Eschatology  with  reference  to  Dr.  Pusey’s  “  What  is  of  Faith  ?  ” 
Second  Edition.  Crown  8vo.  10s.  Gd. 

EFHPHATHA  :  or,  The  Amelioration  of  the  World. 

Sermons  preached  at  Westminster  Abbey,  with  Two  Sermons  preached  in 
St.  Margaret’s  Church  at  the  Opening  of  Parliament.  Crown  8vo.  6s. 

ETERNAL  HOPE.  Sermons  in  Westminster  Abbey. 

November  and  December,  1877.  Crown  8vo.  6s. 

[  Twenty -fourth  Thousand. 

SAINTLY  WORKERS.  Lent  Lectures  delivered  at 

St.  Andrew’s,  Holborn.  March  and  April,  1878.  New  Edition.  Crown 
8vo.  6s. 

SEEKERS  AFTER  GOD.  The  lives  of  SENECA, 

EPICTETUS,  and  MARCUS  AURELIUS.  With  Illustrations.  New 
Edition.  Crown  8vo.  6s. 

“  We  can  heartily  recommend  it  as  healthy  in  tone,  instructive,  interesting, 
mentally  and  spiritually  stimulating  and  nutritious.  Mr.  Farrar  writes  as  a 
scholar,  a  thinker,  an  earnest  Christian,  a  wise  teacher,  and  a  genuine  artist. 
Nonconformist. 

“IN  THE  DAYS  OF  THY  YOUTH.”  Sermons  on 
Practical  Subjects,  Preached  at  Marlborough  College,  from  1871  to  1876. 
Seventh  Edition.  Crown  8vo.  9s. 

“These  sermons  show  us  the  high  gifts — intellectual,  moral,  and  spiritual— 
of  their  author  ;  we  cannot  doubt  they  did  help  most  powerfully  to  do  the 
work  which  he  had  so  closely  at  heart.  (guardian. 

THE  FALL  OF  MAN  :  and  other  Sermons.  Fifth 

Edition.  Crown  8vo.  6s. 

“Ability,  eloquence,  scholarship,  and  practical  usefulness  are  in  these 
sermons  combined  in  a  very  unusual  degree/’— British  Quarterly  Review. 

THE  WITNESS  OF  HISTORY  TO  CHRIST. 

Hulsean  Lectures  for  1870.  Seventh  Edition.  Crown  8vo.  5s. 

“High  and  earnest  in  tone,  they  show  reading  and  thought,  and  they  are 
full  d  passages  of  great  eloquence  and  beauty." — Guardian. 

THE  SILENCE  AND  VOICES  OF  GOD.  University 

and  other  Sermons.  Sixth  Edition.  Crown  8vo.  6s. 

“The  Sermons  are  marked  by  great  ability,  by  an  honesty  which  does  not 
hesitate  to  acknowledge  difficulties,  by  an  earnestness  which  commands 
respect.’’ — Pall  dlall  Gazette. 

MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  LONDON, 


BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR. 


GREEK  GRAMMAR  RULES,  drawn  up  for  the  use 

of  Harrow  School.  Eighteenth  Edition.  8vo.  Is.  6d. 

***  How  in  use  in  Harrow  School,  Marlborough  College,  Rossall  School, 
Uppingham  School,  Charterhouse  School,  &c. 

A  BRIEF  GREEK  SYNTAX  AND  HINTS  ON 

GREEK  ACCIDENCE  ;  with  some  reference  to  Comparative  Philology, 
and  with  Illustrations  from  various  Modern  Languages.  Tenth  Edition. 
12mo.  4-?.  6d. 

“Mr.  Farrar’s  volume  surpasses  all  the  Greek  Grammars  we  have  seen.” — 

Educational  Times. 

“  This  hook  is  the  produce  of  the  ripest  scholarship.  Though  his  main 
object  is  to  treat  of  Syntax,  the  space  he  devotes  to  comparative  philology, 
and  the  copious  illustrations  he  gives  from  various  modern  languages, 
increase  greatly  the  value  of  the  book.  At  the  same  time  his  practical 
experience  in  teaching  his  class  at  Harrow  has  given  him  a  familiarity  with  the 
difficulties  that  beset  beginners,  and  enables  him  most  successfully  to  adapt  his 
teaching  to  their  wants.  We  can  most  cordially  recommend  the  book.” — 
Papers  for  the  Schoolmaster. 

LANGUAGE  AND  LANGUAGES  ;  being  “  Chapters 

on  Language  ”  and  “  Families  of  Speech.”  With  2  Philological  Maps 
and  3  Tables  of  Languages.  Hew  Edition.  Crown  8vo.  6s. 

CHAPTERS  OH  LANGUAGE. 

“  Dr.  Farrar’s  volume  contains  the  fruit  of  much  learned  thought,  and  of 
much  study  of  other  learned  men’s  studies.  The  book  is  written  plainly  and- 
intelligibly,  and  is  full  of  a  large  human  interest.” — Examiner. 

FAMILIES  OF  SPEECH. 

“We  fully  believe  that  Dr.  Farrar’s  book  is  by  far  the  best  account  as  yet 
given  in  English,  within  the  same  compass,  of  the  history,  results,  methods, 
and  aspirations  of  comparative  philology  or  glossology.” — Pall  Mall  Gazette. 

London :  LONGMANS,  GREEN,  &  CO. 


THE  EARLY  DAYS  OP  CHRISTIANITY.  Ninth 

Thousand.  Two  Yols.  24s.  Popular  Edition,  6s. 

THE  LIFE  AND  WORK  OF  ST.  PAUL.  Nineteenth 
Thousand.  Two  Yols.  8vo.  24s.  Illustrated  Edition,  21s.  Popular 
Edition,  6s. 

THE  LIFE  OP  CHRIST.  Thirty-first  Edition.  Library 

Edition.  Two  Yols.  8vo.  Price  24s.  Illustrated  Edition,  cloth,  21s.  ; 
calf  or  morocco,  £2  2s.  Popular  Edition,  6s.  Bijou  Edition,  10s.  6di 

MY  OBJECT  IN  LIFE.  (Heart  Chords  Series.)  Is. 
Londoii :  CASSELL  &  COMPANY,  Limited. 

THE  GOSPEL  OP  ST.  LUKE.  Fcap.  8vo.  4s.  6<L 

(Cambridge  Bible  for  Schools.) 

London:  THE  CAMBRIDGE  WAREHOUSE. 


I 


t 


POES  NOT  CIRCULATE 


irihsr 


POES  NOT  CffiCl&ATE 

BOSTON  COLLEGE  LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  H  :IGHTS 
CHESTNUT  '  ±,  M/.SS. 


Books  may  1  kept  for  two  weeks  and  may 
be  renewed  for  the  same  period,  unless  re¬ 
served. 

Two  cents  a  day  is  charged  for  each  book 
kept  overtime. 

If  you  cannot  find  what  you  want,  ask  the 
Librarian  who  will  be  glad  to  help  you. 

The  borrower  is  responsible  for  books  drawn 
on  his  card  and  for  all  fines  accruing  on  the 


same. 


